Makeup 5

Received: !8 February #0## Accepted: !% November #0#&

DOI: !0.!!!!/ijmr.!#388

REVIEW ARTICLE

Understanding the liminal situation of lone-parent and blended families—A review and agenda for work–family research

Anneke Schaefer1 Caroline Gatrell2 Laura Radcliffe2

!Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK #University of Liverpool Management School, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Correspondence Anneke Schaefer, Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester M!( )BH, UK. Email: a.schaefer@mmu.ac.uk

Abstract This review takes a transdisciplinary approach to work–family (WF) research, offering new perspectives on different family forms in the context of employ- ment. It focuses on lone-parents and blended families, highlighting how management research on the WF interface has been constrained by traditional definitions of ‘family’, assuming intact couple relationships. The review shows that theWF experiences of lone-parents and blended families differ significantly from those of traditional or nuclear families. Our findings demonstrate that blended and lone-parent families struggle with conventional WF policies based on traditional family forms. These families face four main challenges: (!) com- plex residential arrangements and relationships with co-parents; (#) managing (limited) resources; (3) navigating stigma; and (&) narrow cultural scripts defin- ing family roles. Utilizing cross-domain identity transition theory, we question the traditional ideas at the core of current WF theory. We demonstrate that non- traditional families occupy a ‘liminal’ WF space due to their more fluid parental, occupational and household identities compared to traditional families. We urge employers and policy makers to recognize and address the distinct WF chal- lenges faced by lone-parents and blended families. Employers should develop flexible working policies that accommodate complex residential arrangements and provide resources to support lone and blended family structures. Policymak- ers should consider revising family leave policies to be more inclusive of diverse family forms. Future research should further explore the diverse experiences of employed parents, including those from LGBTQIA+ communities, using our framework, which encourages researchers to think differently regarding existing WF theories through the consideration of our four themes.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © #0#& The Author(s). International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

196 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijmr Int J Manag Rev. #0#(;#%:!*)–##0.

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMINAL SITUATION 197

INTRODUCTION

Within management and organization studies (MOS), there exists a wealth of research on the relationships, enrichment and tensions between work and family (Gatrell et al., #0!3). From the !*%0s onwards (focusing mostly on theUSA andEurope, Özbilgin et al., #0!!), inves- tigations flourished regarding gender roles and the division of labour within work–family (WF) contexts (Pleck, !*%%). These abundant literatures within MOS reflected social narratives at the time (Morgan, #0!!), and the focus was centred predominantly on ‘nuclear’ (or what we term here ‘traditional’) family structures: that is to say, heterosexual, dual-earner couples in a first-timemarriage living together with their biological children and where male partners are usually main earners (Gatrell et al., #0!3; Jaskiewicz et al., #0!%; Özbilgin et al., #0!!). A rich array of research from the !*80s to date has continued this emphasis on traditional family forms, with many studies drawing on the semi- nal article of Greenhaus and Beutell (!*8() regarding WF conflict (WFC) among heterosexual dual-earner families (Greenhaus & Powell, #0!)). Yet the turn of the millennium has been marked by

significant shifts in family practices: Within Euro-British and North American contexts, how family is ‘done’ has changed dramatically (Morgan, #0#0). Non-‘traditional’ family structures such as lone and blended families are becoming increasingly common as co-habitation and divorce receive greater social acceptance, especially within ‘Western’ market–driven economies (Burnett et al., #0!3; Murphy et al., #0#0). It is acknowledged within MOS that important new strands of research have begun to explore work and family in relation to different family structures, for example, lone-parent households (e.g., Rad- cliffe et al., #0##). Yet despite calls for a more inclusive approach that reflects changing family contexts (Parasur- aman & Greenhaus, #00#), the dominant image of ‘family’ within MOS WF research remains centred on ‘traditional’ family structures where first-time married parents are the focus (Özbilgin et al., #0!!). It is argued that WF research has achieved only limited success in improving family-friendly working because it does not sufficiently account for the more fluid ways of ‘doing’ family that are increasingly prevalent in society (Banister&Kerrane, #0##; Padavic et al., #0#0; Kossek, Baltes, et al., #0!!; Özbilgin et al., #0!!; Schaefer et al., #0#0). Including diverse fam- ilies more explicitly within WF policies is vital to support employed parents in non-‘traditional’ family arrangements (e.g., Beauregard et al., #00*; Özbilgin et al., #0!!). Support- ing diverse families will in turn likely benefit workplaces in various ways, for example, by improving job satisfaction and retention rates, as well as access to a broader range of

skilled employees (Beauregard et al., #0#0; Fan&Potočnik, #0#!; Schaefer et al., #0#0). Responding to calls for MOS to focus on non-traditional

family structures (Özbilgin et al., #0!!), this review con- tributes to WF knowledge through shifting the focus from first-time married, dual-earner couples and embracing non-‘traditional’ family structures. Specifically, respond- ing to Gatrell et al. (#0!(), Portrie and Hill (#00(), Radcliffe et al. (#0##) and Schaefer et al. (#0#0), the review centres on parenthood and employment in the context of both lone- parent and blended families. It contributes toWF literature inMOS showing how lone and blended parent families fall outside the purview of previous MOS research on work and family, existing in liminal space and with restricted access to family policy. We explore and extend the wealth of WF literatures that examines family practices from a Euro–British/North American perspective. For clarity, we define lone-parents as individuals who

either do not have a co-parent or are not in a relation- ship with their co-parent and who typically live alone with children (Murtorinne-Lahtinen et al., #0!)). We define blended families as constituting both repartnered parents (parents with birth/adopted children who establish a new relationship with another partner) and stepparents (those who establish a relationship with a new partner who has birth/adopted children from a previous relationship, Ganong & Coleman, #0!8). As we have observed, literatures within MOS take often

a narrow view of family structures based on traditional family forms. However, the situation is different within the related areas of psychology, sociology, health, and social policy. Jaskiewicz et al. (#0!%) highlight the need to know more about different family forms. They define these transdisciplinary bodies of WF literature collectively as ‘family science’, and observe how these arenas are in general more advanced thanMOSwith regard to exploring non-traditional family structures. Responding to Jaskiewicz et al. (#0!%), this review brings

to MOS new disciplinary perspectives on lone-parent and blended families. We blend the rich domains of ‘family science’ as identified by Jaskiewicz et al. (#0!%) with liter- atures from MOS (Breslin et al., #0#0), synthesizing both established and emerging thought regarding lone-parents, blended families and employment. Through our focus on lone-parents and blended parent families, we contribute a missing dimension to WF studies in MOS because, although thesemore contemporary family structures are at the forefront of WF research in other disciplines (Gatrell et al., #0#!), such family forms are often absent from studies within MOS (Schaefer et al., #0#0). Given that non-‘nuclear’ (or non-traditional) family

households make up a significant proportion of the work-

198 SCHAEFER ,- ./.

ing population, we argue that such a lack of insight within MOS research is problematic for policy formulation. For example, although !8.%% of all families in England and Wales were lone-parents in #0#! (Office for National Statis- tics, #0#3), policy still fails to reflect the needs of this category (Radcliffe et al., #0##). This is despite research in disciplines other than MOS showing how important it is to support lone-parents. A myriad of studies demonstrate the adverse outcomes of not supporting lone-parents’ WF interface. For example, Brand and Thomas (#0!&) show that when lone-mothers face job displacement, their chil- dren suffer worse outcomes in terms of education and well-being. As for stepfamilies, according to the #0#! census, 8.8%

of dependent children in England and Wales lived in a stepfamily arrangement at that time (Office for National Statistics, #0#&). Overall, 8!.)% of stepparents were male, and it was reported that !#.)%of all dependent children liv- ing in a stepfamily stayed with a second parent or guardian for a period of more than 30 days per year (ibid). When adding the number of blended families to the number of lone-parent families, it becomes apparent that at least a quarter of families with dependent children in the United Kingdom do not conform to the dominant picture of a ‘traditional’ family that consists of heterosexual, first-time married couples living together with their birth children. Moreover, when considering the increasing number of same-sex families in the United Kingdom, which have risen by &0% between #0!( and #0!* (Office for National Statistics, #0!*), the outdated nature of assumptions that all families are ‘traditional’ nuclear families becomes even more evident. Some authors claim that blended families are now statistically normative in countries like the USA, where divorce rates are (0% and a majority of divorcees remarry, )(%ofwhombring children fromapriormarriage (Dupuis, #0!0). It is acknowledged that our focus on lone and blended

families and our stated intent to contribute to and extend the rich array of extant literatures on WF issues within MOS locates our review primarily within a ‘Western’ lens. The area of concern on which we build and the litera- tures on which we draw reflect predominantly market-led economies where the literatures are sufficiently mature to warrant a review (Fan et al., #0#!; Stumbitz & Jaga, #0#0). For the purpose of including lone-parent and blended

families within debate, we locate our review within MOS, where the predominant, traditional definition of family has led to the exclusion, within organizational policy and practice, of non-traditional family forms that require dif- ferent forms of flexibility (Beauregard et al., #00*; Fan & Potočnik, #0#!; Hennekam & Ladge, #0!%; Kurdek, #00&). We acknowledge how, within MOS, research on lone- parenthood, blended families and employment has picked

up momentum in recent years (e.g., Fan & Potočnik, #0#!; Gatrell et al., #0!&; Konrad & Yang, #0!#; McManus et al., #00#; Radcliffe et al., #0##; Schaefer et al., #0#0). How- ever, the majority of MOS perspectives on work and family (from which policy makers draw, Kossek, Pichler, et al., #0!!) retain the sustained focus onnuclear families.Within family science literatures, however, including sociology, psychology, health, and social policy, the picture looks dif- ferent: a wealth of studies investigating the experience of lone-parenthood and blended family forms (e.g., Drobnič, #000; Millar & Ridge, #0#0). Below, we contribute new understandings of work and

family to MOS, drawing on family science literatures to show how life events, such as becoming a parent, divorce and remarriage, can change worker identities and needs, signifying a liminal period in people’s lives as they tran- sition from one state to another (Bernardi & Mortelmans, #0!8; Miller, #00(). Our review contributes to and extends understandings of work and family through illuminating how such transitions are experienced differently among lone-parent and blended families who share four specific challenges as they balance work and family in contexts that may be complex and unsettled—their identity as par- ent or employee changing depending, for example, on whether children are resident at the time. We contribute new understandings of work and family within MOS through these four themes that focus on (!) complex res- idential arrangements and relationships with co-parents, (#) managing (limited) resources, (3) stigma and (&) nar- row cultural scripts defining family roles. To illuminate how WF theories fail presently to embrace more fluid ways of doing family (Morgan, #0#0), we then draw upon the lens of cross-domain identity transition (CDIT, Ladge et al., #0!#) to explore how non-traditional transitions to parenthood leave parents in lone or blended fami- lies in a liminal space, outside both family theory and policy with implications for WF theory development in MOS. The overall structure of this article is as follows: We

start with an overview of our research approach, out- lining our literature search and selection process. We then offer a state-of-the-art integrative review (Fan et al., #0##) of the transdisciplinary literature investigating lone- parents and blended families, organizing this into the four themes described above, drawing on MOS yet introduc- ing also associated disciplines that may be included under the umbrella of ‘family science’ (Jaskiewicz et al., #0!%). Drawing upon and extending CDIT, we next demonstrate how parents in lone and blended families find themselves in a ‘liminal’ space that does not align with notions of traditional families where parents and children are usu- ally living together in one household and parents’ WF identities are more fixed.

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMINAL SITUATION 199

RESEARCH APPROACH

Our aim is to investigate the implications that a focus on lone-parents and blended families has for the theoreti- cal foundations of WF research within an MOS context (cf., Breslin et al., #0#0). This article follows an integrative review process in which we blend narrative and systematic approaches that allow us to explore and critically anal- yse, through the relevant literatures, the main ideas and connections within our area of concern for the purposes of enabling new theoretical perspectives and for gener- ating recommendations for policy and practice (Snyder, #0!*). We combine approaches, beginning with a narra- tive agenda that enabled us to ‘begin with a small number of articles and books, which are then used to identify key authors and other articles that are related to the particu- lar topic’ (Jones & Gatrell, #0!&, p. #(%). This approach was helpful in meeting our research aim due to the complexity of identifying studies on lone-parents and blended fami- lies located in diverse disciplines other than management, which required deep searching and reading. Our research process was guided initially by discovery, with more articles identified as ongoing reading leading us to addi- tional studies and an enhanced understanding of the field (Fan et al., #0##).

Literature search and selection

Figure ! illustrates our approach to searching and selecting relevant literature for our review. We had prior information about some (n = 3*) of the

key texts on lone-parents and blended families in relation to employment, which are located in MOS and associ- ated disciplines. We chose texts based on our research aims, and the texts we selected this way fell broadly into three categories: (!) texts discussing the pertinence of including non-traditional families into WF research and/orMOS (e.g., Jaskiewicz, #0!%; Parasuraman&Green- haus, #00#; Özbilgin et al., #0!!); (#) texts that touched upon employment- and work-related implications of lone- parenthood and being part of a blended family; or (3) texts that offered necessary background knowledge to comprehend the topic at hand (e.g., statistics on repart- nering, such as Skew et al., #00*). As a second step, we then followed a snowballing approach (Fan et al., #0##), scanning the reference lists of these articles to iden- tify any further research related to this topic and our research aims (cf., Jones & Gatrell, #0!&). This first liter- ature search and selection strategy led us to include an initial %& texts for our qualitative synthesis (cf., Mergen & Ozbilgin, #0#!).

Our integrative approach led us to the family science lit- erature, which assisted us in decisions about which search terms to utilize. Building on the body of research gathered through this integrative approach and to ensure a com- prehensive review, we then undertook a semi-systematic search using Scopus in the style recommended by Snyder (#0!*, p. 33&) as suitable for topics like ours ‘that have been conceptualized differently and studied by various groups of researchers’ using diverse methods. Below, we provide an overview of the searches we con-

ducted in order to be transparent and reflexive (Fan et al., #0##) about how we captured relevant studies regarding lone-parents and blended families with implications for employment and organizations, using a variety of search terms, as shown in Table !. As demonstrated in Figure !, with each search that we

undertook as outlined in Table !, we scanned titles and abstracts to determine whether to include each article in the review based on our assessment of how strong their implications were for WF theorization in MOS. As shown in Figure !, this led to a further #3 articles being included through this search and selection strategy. Overall, the *% texts included in the qualitative syntheses drew on sam- ples representing !* countries, with some texts including samples from multiple countries. As Table # shows, most studies included in this review

draw on samples representing countries in the Global North, within which this review is situated due to the maturity of relevant literature. We then read each article in full and analysed the find-

ings by seeking to identify common thematic patterns in the findings (cf., Fletcher & Beauregard, #0##; Özbilgin et al., #0!!). Our observance of the themes that were ‘stand out’ in the literature on blended and lone-parent families followed the process outlined in Figure #. This led us to identify the four key themes that mark the experiences of these family types and which differ from the experiences of traditional families as mainly explored in MOS. Our review is intended to capture and introduce toMOS

the richness of the family science literatures, highlight- ing how a focus on lone-parents and blended families can change the way we think about work and family in MOS.

Findings

To provide background and context for our review of lone and blended families, we first explain the current picture of family that is foregrounded within MOS before con- tributing to this field the WF experiences of lone-parents and blended families, showing how they are distinct from nuclear families and discussing the implications for WF research in MOS.

200 SCHAEFER ,- ./.

F IGURE 1 Overview of literature search and selection strategies.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: ‘THE FAMILY’ AS UNDERSTOODWITHIN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH AND PRACTICE INMOS

In management and organization scholarship and pol- icy within market-led, Western economies, the dominant image of the traditional or ‘nuclear family’ has been strongly influenced by what Gatrell (#00() has termed ‘Parsonian’ ideals. In the !*(0s and !*)0s, US sociolo- gist Talcott Parsons created, effectively, a blueprint (still favoured by governments inmarket-led economies; Gatrell et al., #0!&; Gatrell et al., #0!3) for what he presented as an ideal family form. Parsonian sociology endorsed an

image of family in which paid and unpaid work would be shared along gendered lines within married heterosex- ual couples (Banister & Kerrane, #0##; Beauregard et al., #00*). Fathers were assumed to be ‘instrumental’ main providers, mothers taking lead responsibility for domes- tic care agendas, contributing to capitalist economies through consuming family-related goods and services (Par- sons & Bales, !*()). This gendered division of labour was advocated as the driver of industrialization. Among pol- icy makers, it was (and arguably still is, Ashman et al., #0##) assumed to be fulfilled best within intact ‘tradi- tional’ family forms, giving rise to ‘functional family ideology’ (Beauregard et al., #00*, p. &; see also Bernardes, !**%).

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMINAL SITUATION 201

TABLE 1 Search details for data base searches.

Search details Publication date No limitation Keywords (in titles) ‘stepmother’ OR ‘stepfather’ OR ‘stepparent’ OR ‘blended famil*’ OR ‘blended PRE/3 famil*’ OR ‘stepfamil*’ OR

‘repartnered father’ OR ‘repartnered mother’ OR ‘remarried mother’ OR ‘remarried father’ OR ‘lone-mother’, ‘lone-father’ OR ‘lone-parent’ OR ‘single parent’ OR ‘single mother’ OR ‘single father OR ‘divorced mother’ OR ‘divorced father’ OR ‘separated mother’ OR ‘separated father’ OR ‘co-parent’ OR ‘non-resident father’ OR ‘non-resident mother’ OR ‘single N3 parent’ OR ‘single N3mother’ OR ‘single N3 father’ AND ‘workplace’ OR ‘employer’ OR ‘job’ OR ‘employment’ OR ‘money management’ OR ‘financ*’ OR ‘work-family’ OR ‘work-life’ OR ‘work’ OR ‘work and family’ OR ‘work-to-family conflict’ OR ‘family-to-work conflict’

Databases Scopus Language English Document type Peer-reviewed journal articles and scholarly book chapters Research type Empirical studies, theoretical papers and literature reviews Research disciplines

No limitation

TABLE 2 Geographical distribution of studies included in review. Country Number of samples included in review The USA 3& The United Kingdom #! Finland % Australia ) The Netherlands ( Canada ( Sweden 3 Belgium 3 Ireland # Germany # New Zealand ! Greece ! Italy ! Denmark ! Spain ! Portugal ! Austria ! France ! Chile ! Non-empirical articles !(

In practice, however (given women’s increased labour- market participation and the gender equality agenda, Row- botham, !**%), this ‘traditional’ Parsonian family image is increasingly at odds with contemporary family prac- tices (Cluley & Hecht, #0#0; Goldberg et al., #0!#; Morgan, #0#0). Yet because they do not conform to Parsonian ‘func- tional family ideologies’, non-traditional lone-parent and blended families are stigmatized and considered within

neo-liberal cultures as socially less desirable than the ‘tra- ditional’ nuclear family arrangements that continue to be valorized among capitalist governments and policymakers (Anand & Mitra, #0#!; Sanner et al., #0#!). Notions of tra- ditional, gendered, household divisions of labour remain the focus ofMOS research and organizational/government policies, which are still, often, designed and implemented around assumptions about dual-earner ‘nuclear’ families

202 SCHAEFER ,- ./.

F IGURE 2 Analysing and understanding/thematizing the literatures on blended and lone-parent families.

where fathers are main breadwinners, employed moth- ers are primary childcarers and all family members reside in the same household (Banister & Kerrane, #0##; Gatrell et al., #0!3; Ashman et al., #0##). This prevailing definition of ‘the family’ within the field

of MOS has had a significant impact on organizational policy and practices because it overlooks non-traditional family structures that require different forms of adapt- ability (Beauregard et al., #00*; Fan & Potočnik, #0#!; Hennekam & Ladge, #0!%; Kurdek, #00&). Below, we contribute new insights to the study of work

and familywithinMOS by drawing from the family science literature.We demonstrate how life events, such as becom- ing a parent, going through a divorce or getting remarried, can alter individuals’ identities and needs, representing a transitional period in their lives (Bernardi & Mortelmans, #0!8; Miller, #00(). Our review expands work and family research by showing how these transitions are experienced differently by lone-parents and blended families, yet WF theories currently fail to embracemore flexible approaches to defining family (Morgan, #0#0).

THEWORK–FAMILY INTERFACE: LONE-PARENTS AND BLENDED FAMILIES

Theme 1: Complex residential arrangements for children and relationships with co-parents

Lone-parent families

Compared with the residential arrangements among ‘tra- ditional’ Parsonian families, where parents and children from a first marriage all live together in the same house- hold, residential arrangements among lone-parent fami- lies are more complex. The lack of a co-parent within the immediate household can increase the difficulties of bal- ancing employment with childcare. Lone-parents typically are not in a relationship with their co-parent and usually do not livewith a co-parent, even if one exists (Murtorinne- Lahtinen et al., #0!)). This lack of a resident partner to share domestic and childcare-related tasks poses one of

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMINAL SITUATION 20(

the main challenges for lone-parents navigating paid work and parenthood. The majority of studies on WF concerns among lone-parents investigate the experiences of lone- mothers. Within family science literatures, an abundance of studies have investigated how lone-mothers manage work and family commitments, for example, showing that employed lone-mothers experience role strain as they bal- ance caregiving alongside paid work, in the absence of a resident co-parent (Van Gasse & Mortelmans, #0#0). Research comparing the experiences of coupled and lone- mothers highlights how the absence of a working partner has a negative indirect effect on work-life balance satisfac- tion due to reduced family financial management capacity (Fan & Potočnik, #0#!). However, it is pertinent to note that there are many dif-

ferent types of lone-parents, and family commitments dif- fer depending on residence status of the children and the presence of and relationship with a co-parent with whom to share childcare. Post-divorce co-parenting relationships post-divorce are often volatile (Bonach, #00(; Philip & O’Brien, #0!%), and extant research shows that residential arrangements and relationships with co-parents can have important outcomes for the WF domain. For example, a Dutch study on different types of lone-motherhood found that although lone-mothers in general struggle more than coupled parents tomanagework and family commitments, it is lone-mothers with children who are resident full-time that strugglemost to integrate parenting with employment (Bakker & Karsten, #0!3). Similarly, a study by Iztayeva (#0##) shows that lone-

fathers whose children live with them most of the time experience WFC because of prioritizing caregiving and resisting ideal worker norms. The same study noted impor- tant differences between white and blue-collar workers, with white-collar lone-fathers experiencing more work- place support, including flexible working. When either type of lone-father is unable to resolve WFC, this may lead to job loss or reduced income (Iztayeva, #0##).

Blended families

Lone-parenthood is, however, often a transitory state, with many lone-parents, eventually repartnering (Skew et al., #00*), forming a blended family with new partners and children from previous relationships (Ganong & Coleman, #0!8). The partner who brings a child from a previous relationship into a new family arrangement is typically referred to as a ‘repartnered parent’. Their partner is referred to as a stepparent in their relationship to their part- ner’s child (or children) from previous relationships (ibid). As we indicate below, WF experiences among blended families might be quite different from those of ‘traditional’

families, yet family policies often remain organized around assumptions based on traditional family forms (Schaefer et al., #0#0). Blended families encounter distinct challenges in form-

ing and maintaining new family units due to simulta- neously navigating new family dynamics such as con- solidating different parenting approaches and building relationships with stepchildren, alongside navigating rela- tionships with previous partners (Kumar, #0!%; Ganong et al., R0!(). Residential arrangements for children may be diverse and/or volatile after blended family forma- tion (Cartwright & Gibson, #0!3). Thus, blended family systems often transcend the boundaries of a single house- hold, with co-parents, partners and dependent biological and stepchildren located in multiple households (Braith- waite et al., #003). Furthermore, the formation of a blended family often further complicates relationships if the stepparent, an additional parental figure, is added. This can place stress on the relationships between step- parent and repartnered parent, repartnered parent and their co-parent/ex-partners creating new complex rela- tionships between stepparents and co-parent/ex-partners, which may lead to conflict among the different parties, with implications for employment (Cartwright & Gibson, #0!3). For example, if relationships between co-parents are volatile, this can lead to levels of parenting responsibil- ity varying daily (Ganong & Coleman, #0!8). This may lead to family-to-work conflict due to required short-notice childcare arrangements (Schaefer et al., #0#0).

Theme 2: Managing (limited) resources

Lone-parent families

Employed lone-mothers who are also lead-carers often struggle managing the limited resources they have avail- able to navigate theirWF interface. Due to the absence of a co-parent, many resident lone-mothers are the sole earner and carer and providing for their children often becomes central to their WF interface (Spencer-Dawe, #00(). How- ever, barriers exist to residential lone-mothers being able to focus on employment, as they often experience issues around securing reliable and affordable childcare, creat- ing family-to-work conflict (Moilanen et al., #0!)). Formal childcare options are rarely flexible enough to allow lone- mothers to balance employment alongside their intensive parenting role (Brady, #0!)). Notably, during the Covid-!* pandemic, family-to-work conflict among employed lone- mothers was exacerbated still further due to the closure of childcare facilities and lack of access to informal child- care support (Hertz et al., #0#0). To alleviate such conflict, lone-mothers are shown to adjust downwards their work

20) SCHAEFER ,- ./.

hours or status, being pushed into low-paid and/or precari- ous employment, which impacts negatively on their career advancement (Alsarve, #0!%; Hughes & Gray, #00(; Mil- lar & Ridge, #0!3; Millar & Ridge, #0#0; Moilanen et al., #0!*; Ridge & Millar, #0!!). A lack of affordable childcare has generally been found to have a negative effect on lone- mothers’ employment rates, pushing them into welfare dependency (Connelly & Kimmel, #003). By contrast, the limited research on lone-fathers is

mainly focused on men with non-resident children. In their study on co-parenting post-divorce, Neale and Smart (!**%) found that fathers sought at least some level of child-residency post-divorce; however, few could realize this aim, perhaps due to being in full-time and inflexible employment, whereas female ex-partners mostly worked part-time. Men thus lacked sufficient resources or infras- tructure for sustaining co-parenting post-divorce (Neale & Smart, !**%; see also Andreasson & Johansson, #0!*). Hook and Chalasani (#008) suggest this is due to lone- fathers still being seen by courts as primary breadwinners and this expectation to support their families at least partly explains why lone-fathers have been found in Hook and Chalasani’s study to spend less time with their children than lone-mothers. Consequently, fathers retreat into iden- tities of good father as provider, which can lead to such fathers reporting financial stress due to child maintenance payments (Natalier & Hewitt, #0!0). Although less rich than research on lone-mothers, the

growing body of literature on the WF interface for resi- dent lone-fathers paints a similar picture to that of resident lone-mothers. Both lone-fathers and lone-mothers experi- ence exacerbated WFC due to stretching limited resources to cover childcare, whereas reduced access to childcare support from their extended families intensified existing conflicts with co-parents (Iztayeva, #0#!).

Blended families

Similar to our findings on lone-parents, the literature on blended families suggests that they are also often managing in the context of limited resources in rela- tion to finances and childcare. In terms of financial resources, repartnered/stepparents in blended families often seek to maintain financial independence within the couple relationship (Raijas, #0!!). Repartnered moth- ers focus on maintaining financial independence (Rogers, !**)), whereas repartnered fathers struggle with financial resources due to financially providing for multiple house- holds (Cartwright&Gibson, #0!3; Hans&Coleman, #00*). Among repartnered mothers, a quantitative analysis of

survey data revealed that many repartnered women strive

to maintain financial independence through employment (Van Eeden-Moorefield et al., #00%), with distinctive implications for WF arrangements. Such women might have higher work attachment than mothers in first-order unions, which may mean that blended families are less likely to divide domestic care arrangements along Par- sonian lines. A quantitative inquiry into mothers’ work hours andmarital quality (Rogers, !**)) stresses how, espe- cially in larger blended families, maternal employment is positively linked to mothers’ reports of marital satisfac- tion. The authors speculate that this might be because mothers in stepfather families who are employed full-time might feel more positive about their marital relation- ship because they are able to maintain their financial independence, providing for their birth children andmain- taining equal status with new partners (ibid). For some women, repartnering leads to positive financial outcomes. A quantitative study (Jansen et al., #00*) suggests that this is because having a new partner enables mothers to increase their engagement in paid work, especially if they were previously lone-parents. An important quan- titative study by Fan and Potočnik (#0#!) located within MOS finds furthermore that when lone-mothers repart- ner and their new partner is in paid employment, this had a positive indirect effect on their work-life balance satisfaction, as two incomes increases financial family flexibility. In contrast, studies investigating the experiences of

repartnered fathers find that they face greater financial stress than fathers in first unions, as repartnered men are expected to provide financial support to children from previous unions, as well as supporting stepchildren and children born into new blended families (Cartwright & Gibson, #0!3; Hans & Coleman, #00*). Stepfathers also may experience stress around managing financial resources as societal norms anticipate that stepfathers have a moral obligation to provide for stepchildren (Cartwright & Gibson, #0!3; Maclean et al., #0!(). This may have serious implications for men’s employment as repart- nered fathers and stepfathers encounter requirements to maintain or increase earning capacity in addition to other, complex family arrangements around caregiving. Fathers are known to lack organizational support fol- lowing biological paternity (Gatrell et al., #0!(; Ladge et al., #0!(), suggesting that men entering into non- traditional family arrangements might struggle to access family-friendly initiatives at work while at the same time dealing with increased financial demands. Men in blended families might find it hard to manage provision for their families financially while having only limited organizational resources available to support them in this endeavour.

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMINAL SITUATION 205

Theme (: Stigma

Lone-parent families

As discussed above, lone-parents, especially those with resident children, often struggle to maintain full-time employment, which can lead to them requiring access to income support and other welfare policies. Parents who live on state benefits are highly stigmatized (Finn & Mur- phy, #0##), and even when lone-parents do not access such policies, they are often presumed to be welfare-dependent and stereotyped (Valiquette-Tessier et al., #0!)). Research on British lone-mothers has found that they try to distance themselves from such negative stereotypes and that the stigma associated with their non-traditional family iden- tities can in turn influence how they construct their work identities (Radcliffe et al., #0##). Among lone-fathers, research investigating their WF

interface is still growing. However, one experimental study set in Germany revealed that lone-fathers who were seen as primary carers were perceived as less committed to their jobs (see also Gatrell et al., #0!() and less competent than either childless men or lone-mothers (Steffens et al., #0!*). This suggests that resident lone-fathers, especially when they have resident children, may feel stigmatized at work to an even larger extent than lone-mothers due to their non-gender-normative role as primary carers.

Blended families

Despite demographic changes meaning that blended fam- ilies are increasingly the norm in market-led economies (Dupuis, #0!0), such family forms may still be treated by neo-liberal governments and policy makers as socially incomplete and undesirable, whereas nuclear family units continue to be treated as ‘ideal’ (Blyaert et al., #0!); Dupuis, #0!0). Negative connotations surrounding blended fami- lies and the lack of social (and by implication organiza- tional) support offered make stepfamilies fragile and more vulnerable to dissolution (Coleman et al., #000; Kumar, #0!%). A wealth of research within family science literature

explores stigma experienced by stepparents. Stepmothers experience severe stigma around their new family identi- ties as biological maternity is socially idealized, whereas stepmotherhood is considered a ‘lesser’ form of mother- hood (Roper & Capdevila, #0!0; Sanner & Coleman, #0!%), culturally associated with ‘wicked stepmother’ stereotypes (Miller et al., #0!8; Roper & Capdevila, #0!0). Research on stigma experienced by stepfathers demonstrates the prevalence of stereotypes around the stepfather as a poten-

tial sexual abuser of his stepchildren (Saint-Jacques et al., #0#0). However, it has not yet been explored how mem- bers of blended families navigate their stigmatized family identities in a work context.

Theme ): Narrow cultural scripts defining family roles

Lone-parent families

Research suggests that lone-parenthood continues to be seen as gendered, with lone-mothers expected to be pri- mary carers of resident children. Social assumptions that lone-mothers both provide and care for children have allowed some women to create novel and positive cul- tural scripts around their roles as both primary carers and providers. For example, employed mothers who can man- age without welfare support experience enhanced levels of self-respect (May, #0!!; Radcliffe et al., #0##) and some post-divorce mothers experience heightened commitment to and enjoyment of paid work once they no longer need to worry about prioritizing a couple relationship (Bevan & Gatrell, #0!%). However, not all lone-mothers are able to draw on such positive cultural scripts of lone-motherhood: Working-classmothers find themselves limited in enacting the kind of mothering they want to achieve due to precari- ous employment, low incomes and non-standard working hours, leading to high levels ofWFC (Spencer-Dawe, #00(; Wallis & Price, #003). Similarly, non-resident lone-fathersmight find it hard to

build positive identities both in relation towork and family domains, as they experience reduced access to their chil- dren and are often pushed into provider-identities (Pasley et al., #00*; Philip, #0!3). It has been noted that compet- ing pressures to be solo primary breadwinners and carers at the same time might still be especially prevalent for lone-fathers (Hook & Chalasani, #008). Even fewer cultural scripts seem to exist for other kinds

of lone-parents. Non-resident lone-mothers and resident lone-fathers, for example, are often ignored in current lit- erature (Gatrell et al., #0!(), and thus, little is known about how they perceive their family roles or how they inter- act with employment. What has been noted, however, is that societal narratives around lone-fatherhood seem to be changing as lone-fathers who co-parent post-divorce are increasing, which means taking on heavy caregiv- ing responsibilities. Social narratives further influence how lone-fathers see themselves. Philip (#0!3) demon- strates that divorced and co-parenting fathers both accept and resist traditional fathering norms, seeking to main- tain their identities as providers for family income yet

206 SCHAEFER ,- ./.

challenging workplace tendencies to treat fatherhood as invisible in men’s lives.

Blended families

Blended families, like lone-parent families, experience dis- tinct challenges compared to those experienced by nuclear families, with members more likely to take on multiple new roles when forming the blended family (DeGre- eff & Platt, #0!)). For instance, an individual entering a relationship with a previously lone-parent becomes a spouse/partner as well as a stepparent in the process, thereby experiencing a very different transition to par- enthood than heterosexual married/co-habiting parents (ibid), which is often the sole focus when considering workplace implications and support within MOS litera- ture. Upon entering a blended family, stepparents (those who

establish a relationship with someone who has children from a former relationship) assume two new roles: that of a spouse/partner and that of a stepparent. This prompts questions around the prioritization of either role and expectations surrounding each role. The role of stepparent is particularly challenging as it is ambiguous and culturally undefined in nature (Braithwaite et al., #00!), which iswhy stepparents often suffer from role ambiguity (Felker et al., #00#). Family science research suggests that stepmothers particularly report high levels of role ambiguity, suggesting that theymight also feel unclear about their entitlement to access family-friendly policies at work (Doodson&Davies, #0!&; Miller et al., #0!8; Riness & Sailor, #0!(). Socially, stepmothers are expected to take on a mater-

nal role (Schmeeckle, #00%), and there is evidence that stepmothers are often active parents (Miller et al., #0!8; Riness & Sailor, #0!(), attempting to fulfil gendered expec- tations by trying to align themselves with traditional norms of good motherhood (Church, #000). Stepmothers might thus experience WFC if they prioritize childcare responsibilities to meet traditional good mother norms (Murtorinne-Lahtinen & Jokinen, #0!%; Jones, #00&), yet without the status of supposedly ‘natural’ birth mother- hood (Miller, #00(). However, there is also evidence of stepmothers prioritiz-

ing other life domains, such as paid work, over childcare. For instance, Pérez and Jaramillo Tórrens (#00*) showed that some stepmothers delayed biological childbearing in fear of it constraining their professional development. These stepmothers reportedly did not consider partners’ children as ‘their’ children and sought to avoid intensive norms associated with biological or adoptive mother- ing that could pressure them into reducing their work attachment (ibid). These findings illustrate a complex and diverse transition to stepmotherhood, as well as the impor-

tant role of employment in such experiences. Despite this, such non-traditional transitions to parenthood currently remain unacknowledged in MOS literatures. Similarly, the transition to stepfatherhood is a chal-

lenging process in which men experience role ambiguity (Gold, #0#0). Studies by Gold (#0#0), Blyaert et al. (#0!)) and Marsiglio (#00&) demonstrate how some stepfathers struggle with their relationship with their stepchildren’s biological father, which prevents them from identifying as ‘the father’. However, as many children traditionally live mostly or exclusively with mothers post-divorce, other stepfathers have claimed their stepchildren as their own where the biological father is not (or only to a limited extent) involved in his children’s lives (Marsiglio, #00&). Perhaps for this reason, it is argued that stepfathers assim- ilate themselves more easily into blended families than stepmothers and experience less role strain within the blended family system (Whitsett & Land, !**#; Weaver & Coleman, #00(; Coleman&Ganong, !**%). However, Cole- man and Ganong (!**%) believe this is because fathers are generally less involved in childcare, regardless of family structure, thus conceptualizing the stepfather role simi- larly to that of a ‘traditional’ father, in that their main responsibility is to prioritize commitments to employment and focus on financial provision for the family while act- ing as secondary carers. However, although there is still a societal perception that stepfathers have a moral obliga- tion to provide for stepchildren (Maclean et al., #0!(), the characterization of the fathering role as passive is becom- ing less relevant, and fathers are increasingly expected to be more involved carers (Gatrell et al., #0#!; Banister & Kerrane, #0##). As with ‘involved’ fathers in ‘traditional’ family settings (Ladge et al., #0!(), stepfathers may take on more childcare responsibilities than currently assumed (Adamsons et al., #00%), subsequently invokingWFC. Con- sidering the stepfather context alongside suggestions that repartneredmothers strive tomaintain breadwinner status (Van Eeden-Moorefield et al., #00%), it seems possible that blended familiesmay be less likely to ‘fall back into gender’ (Miller, #0!!) than traditional family forms. However, this is yet to be examined in MOS literature, with MOS litera- turemostly examining gender equality at the firstmarriage couple-level and currentlymaking no distinctions between couples in nuclear and blended families. Stepfathers who do become involved in childcare might,

however, like fathers in ‘traditional’ families, struggle to access flexible working (Humberd et al., #0!(), and, as noted above, men who financially support two house- holds experience tension between expectations to be both providers and hands-on fathers for ‘new’ families while simultaneously paying child-support for children from previous relationships (Hans & Coleman, #00*). Repartneredmothers and fathers are thus shown to nav-

igate the transition to blended-family living in different

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMINAL SITUATION 207

ways from traditional parents in the transition to first-time biological parenthood (Turner et al., #0#!). For example, family science literatures highlight how role ambiguity is more prevalent for newly blended families with the estab- lishment of new co-parenting arrangements (Martin-Uzzi & Duval-Tsioles, #0!3). Perhaps as a way to deal with such role ambiguity, repartnered individuals are shown to be more independent in relation to both parenting prac- tices and earned income than are individuals in first-order unions (Van Eeden-Moorefield et al., #00%; Allen et al., #00!; Raijas, #0!!).

IMPLICATIONS OF STUDIES ON LONE-PARENTS AND BLENDED FAMILIES FORWORK–FAMILY THEORY DEVELOPMENT INMOS

In sum, the challenges facing employed lone-parents and parents in blended families are different andmore complex than the challenges facing ’traditional’ nuclear families. Organizations design policies that service traditional fam- ily situations and (in keeping with much MOS research) take a narrow view of what ‘family’ looks like, as well as what kinds of flexibility might be needed by parents. In other words, family-friendly policies are written with ide- alized visions of ‘traditional’ family forms in mind. As we show above, employed parents in non-traditional, blended or lone-parent families do not easily fit into such ‘tradi- tional’ categories. Both MOS research and organizational policy fail to embrace more fluid ways of ‘doing’ fam- ily (Morgan, #0#0), with the result that employed parents whose identities do not align with traditional family forms may be ignored and discounted. As a lens to illuminate the implications of our find-

ings for MOS theory and practice, we draw on CDIT theory (Ladge et al., #0!#), a contemporary theory within current WF research situated in MOS, which explains the importance of worker identity across work and fam- ily domains. CDIT was developed originally to enhance understanding of transitions among employed women whose identity shifted from non-mother to becoming a mother (mostly within traditional family arrangements). Below, we consider how blended and lone-parent families navigate employment alongside transitions in parenting identity as they move from one status to another (e.g., becoming a stepparent). This approach offers additional insights into the employment experiences of these groups and provides important theoretical extensions to CDIT. Below, we outline CDIT theory in more detail. We then

consider how each of the four themes emanating from our analysis can illuminate the experience of parents in non- traditional families and extend CDIT theorizing.

CROSS-DOMAIN IDENTITY TRANSITION THEORY

Identity transitions across WF domains are an important component of WF issues (e.g., becoming a parent in an organizational context; Hennekam, #0!); Hennekam et al., #0!*) because understanding such transitions facilitates investigation of how family and work identities intersect and influence each other (Ramarajan & Reid, #0!3). CDIT theory (Ladge et al., #0!#) allows organizational scholars to investigate the intersection of work and family identities and is gaining momentum in WF research (Rowson et al., #0#!). CDIT is particularly relevant when we consider existing literature on diverse families because it accounts for the influence that family events have on parents’ fam- ily and work identities with important implications for organizations (Ladge et al., #0!#).

Cross-domain identity transitions in nuclear families

CDIT theory was introduced by Ladge et al. (#0!#), who evidenced how the transition to motherhood triggered an adjustment to identity (or sense of self) in the con- text of changes to women’s work and family identities. In developing CDIT, these authors evidenced how first-time motherhood impacted non-mothers’ established identities as employees, showing the different ways in which preg- nant women come to terms with their new ‘cross-domain’ identity as both employee and mother. A growing body of literature is building on CDIT in MOS (e.g., Humberd et al., #0!(; Hennekam, #0!); Hennekam et al., #0!*), continuing to explore women’s maternal and employee identities during first pregnancy and post-birth (Greenberg et al., #0!)). Such studies identify pregnancy as a ‘limi- nal’ period forworkingwomen, liminality implying ‘a state of being betwixt and between social roles and/or iden- tities’ (Ibarra & Obodaru, #0!), p. &%) as they transition from being employees with no children to being employed mothers (Millward, #00); Johnston& Swanson, #00)). The ‘liminal’ stage of pregnancy in CDIT, whereby workers anticipate motherhood but are not yet mothers, is inspired by the three-stage model developed by van Gennep, in which the notion of liminality explains shifts in personal identity (!*)0 [!*0*]) as people transition from one sta- tus to another. As illustrated in Figure 3, these phases are specifically: separation, in which non-maternal identities are left behind; liminality, for instance, during preg- nancy employed women are transitioning from previous ‘non-mother’ identities to identities as mothers; and inte- gration, where, in the case of pregnancy, the liminal stage is completed once a non-mother gives birth and integrates

208 SCHAEFER ,- ./.

F IGURE ( Cross-domain identity transition (CDIT) adapted from Ladge et al. (#0!#).

her new identity as mother into her overall sense of self (Hennekam et al., #0!*). Although Greenberg et al. (#0!)) caution against too lit-

eral an interpretation of the neat linearity of the three-stage model (because CDITsmight bemore fluid than themodel infers), the transition to parenthood as shown in Figure 3, where a parentmoves from one stage to another with iden- tities at each stage clearly articulated, is in keepingwith the representation of traditional family roles and identities in much MOS research and relatedly within organizational policy. Below, we show how such transitions within new fam-

ily forms may be different, with less clarity around how and when transitions begin and end. Extending CDIT in this way enables a better understanding of how parents in lone and blended families manage changes in their iden- tity alongside paid work. Drawing on our four themes as outlined above, reflective of the distinct challenges expe- rienced by lone-parent and blended families, we indicate how parents in such families are likely to be impacted as they try to manage ‘liminal’ identities in aWF context that assumes more stable WF identities, thereby marginalizing their needs. In sum, insights from the four themes suggest that such families are likely to experience ongoing liminal- ity (where ‘integration’, the stage in which new identities are integrated into an overall sense of self in a way that may be recognizable to both organizations and parents themselves), which may never be attained. Although such prolonged liminality is acknowledged in broader MOS scholarship, this has previously been acknowledged in relation to work identities only (Johnsen & Sørensen, #0!&), with understandings regarding how prolonged lim- inality may impact WF transitions not currently captured within MOS theorizing.

CROSS-DOMAIN IDENTITY TRANSITIONS FOR LONE-PARENT AND BLENDED FAMILIES

Complex residential arrangements of children and relationships with co-parents

The CDIT process is likely to play out differently depend- ing on parenting context, as residential arrangements and

relationships with co-parents lead to different outcomes regarding the WF interface (Bakker & Karsten, #0!3). For example, in relation to lone-parent families, Pasley et al. (#00*) show how non-residential fathers are often pushed into a breadwinner identity, unable to maintain an involved fathering identity due to limited access to their children. Employed, non-residential lone-fathers might experience fluctuations in their family identities when non-resident children visit for extended periods, requir- ing these fathers, who usually prioritize paid work, to re-orient their identities as involved fathers for a short yet intensive timeframe (Gatrell et al., #0!(). From the per- spective of MOS (as well as in practice, Kossek, Baltes, et al., #0!!), it is important to understand hownon-resident lone-fathers might therefore require ongoing adjustments to their employee and carer identities, remaining in a ‘liminal’ situation where their focal identity as provider and carer fluctuates, requiring more responsive, flexible policies that recognize and support such fluctuations. Sim- ilarly, among blended families, ‘liminal’ situations where care is shared and children move in and out of households may remain fluid, with employed parents required to jug- gle work and family identities depending upon household formation at any given time (Burnett et al., #0!3). Alternatively, although many individuals become lone-

parents through divorce/separation or bereavement, other lone-parents might never have had a co-parent (Mannis, !***). That is, these individuals experience the transi- tion to parenthood and the transition to lone-parenthood simultaneously (Bock, #000). This transition process in which individuals deal with major changes due to becom- ing a parent without a co-parent might be different from the transition to ‘traditional’ parenthood within a dual- earner couple affording potential to expand our theorizing of parenting identities and needs, with implications for organizational policy.

Managing (limited) resources

Financial pressure increases for mothers and fathers upon becoming lone-parents. Studies on non-resident lone- fathers demonstrate that men often report financial stress around child support payments (Natalier & Hewitt, #0!0), which can impact their work identities. The study of

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMINAL SITUATION 209

Pasley et al. (#00*) on US fathers shows that providing becomes more important to them in the transition to lone- parenthood, perhaps among divorced/separated men who experience reduced access to children post-divorce and hence adjust their identity froman involved caregiving role to an enhanced breadwinning role (Gatrell et al., #0!(). At the same time, Belgian lone-mothers, who identify as

main or sole breadwinners, have been found to integrate a more traditionally masculine role into their identities alongside their existing traditional maternal role as hands- on carers (Van Gasse &Mortelmans, #0#0). Radcliffe et al. (#0##) highlight how trying to combine sole/predominant breadwinner and sole/predominant carer identities comes at a cost to well-being and/or career. The financial implica- tions of becoming a lone-parent, therefore, seem to trigger a CDIT process in which new family and work identi- ties emerge. Priorities of extant work and family identities might change yet remain fluid as parents seek to balance identities thatmight be situational as children’s needs vary. As for blended families, studies by Raijas (#0!!) and

Van Eeden-Moorefield et al. (#00%) suggest less finan- cial interdependence among and between some couples in blended families, perhaps because repartnered mothers and fathers reject organizational narratives that valorize gendered visions of traditional families (Miller, #0!#). Instead, repartnered mothers and fathers may be reluc- tant to separate from their identities as lone-parents, built around their dual role as main breadwinner and carer (Radcliffe et al., #0##). Extending the notion of CDITs to incorporate more diverse parenthood transitions could shed light on how repartnered parents respond to iden- tity transitions (see Ladge et al., #0!#) as they struggle to build coherent new identities and potentially experi- ence a state of ongoing liminality. Such research would have implications for policy because potential (but per- haps inaccurate) assumptions on the part of employers that repartnered parents will fall back into gendered divisions of labour may be mistaken and unhelpful for both parents and organizations.

Stigma

Existing literature highlights that families who deviate from the traditional nuclear family arrangement face stigma (e.g., Hennekam & Ladge, #0!%). More broadly, research located inMOS highlights the impact, on identity construction processes, of holding a stigmatized identity (Murphy et al., #0#0). It might be that lone-parents and members of blended families, in working to dissociate themselves from stigmatized identities (e.g., the single par- ent on benefits, who is a financial drain on society, or the ‘wicked stepmother’), strive towards further attach- ment to socially valued identities (e.g., the socially valued

work role), which can narrow the range of viable, positive integrated identity positions available, further exacerbat- ing challenges in constructing more stable WF identities (Radcliffe et al., #0##). Stepparents, evidenced in the family science literature as being particularly impacted by stigma- tization of their family identities (Miller et al., #0!8), may therefore find CDIT processes especially challenging. For instance, stepmothers have been found to seek to avoid or ameliorate stigmatization by striving to demonstrate strong mothering competence and engaging in hands- on care to counter the ‘wicked stepmother’ stereotype. However, this is particularly challenging in environments where others might not recognize their parental role, such as in the workplace (Miller et al., #0!8). Striving to integrate an identity as a good mother by performing hands-on care without receiving the societal recognition granted to biologicalmothers, such as (perceived) access to family-friendly policies, may, therefore, exacerbate CDIT challenges. Similarly, for single mothers, although invest- ing in developing work identities may help distance single mothers from associated stigma, they often face particular challenges in doing so due to parenting alone (Radcliffe et al., #0##). This is exacerbated by strong ideal worker norms and a lack of recognition and support in the workplace (Radcliffe et al., #0##). In other words, for non-traditional families, navigating a stigmatized family identity is likely to play a key role during CDIT processes, adding further complexity, which is an important area for future research. Such research would also have implications for work-

place policy and practice. For instance, targeted support and encouragement of career progression for lone-parents, coupled with extensive work-life balance and well-being support, might be particularly pertinent in enabling fur- ther healthy engagement with socially valued work iden- tities. Additionally, broadening family-friendly organiza- tional supports to explicitly acknowledge a diversity of family arrangements, including stepparents, might enable better integration of work and family identities.

Narrow cultural and organizational scripts defining family roles

As highlighted earlier (and acknowledging that this comes with its own pressures), transitions to biological moth- erhood within the context of employment are defined through the cultural and organizational scripts that guide this experience (Miller, #00(). In contrast, transitions to lone and blended parenthood are highlighted as being ambiguous (Braithwaite et al., #00!; Madden-Derdich & Leonard, #00#; Sweeney, #0!0). Given that ambiguity is suggested to make constructing a new coherent identity challenging (Ibarra & Obodaru, #0!)), the implications for

210 SCHAEFER ,- ./.

the WF identities of lone-parents and blended families are important to consider. For example, Madden-Derdich and Leonard (#00#) suggest that lone-mothers and lone- fathers find themselves in liminal space, struggling to redefine who they are as both parents and workers follow- ing a divorce or separation. There are few organizational narratives to guide lone-parents in this process, with lone-parents obliged to construct their own parental role based on their unique circumstances (Madden-Derdich & Leonard, #00#). Hence, employed mothers and fathers might navigate the transition to lone-parenthood, and the consequent adjustment of work and family identities in very different ways to first-time married/co-habiting cou- ples transitioning to biological parenthood. For example, Radcliffe et al. (#0##) show how lone-mothers construct identities around their dual role as carer and breadwin- ner, with work identities and breadwinning highlighted as central. This is in contrast to mothers in dual-earner families whomay ‘fall back into gender’, identifying as pri- mary carers and secondary breadwinners in the transition to motherhood (Miller, #0!#; Miller, #0!!), even in cases where they provide the majority of the household income (Chesley, #0!)). If becoming a lone-parent means enter- ing a liminal space between being a coupled-parent and parenting alone, families with only one parent might find themselves excluded from family-friendly policy, which centres largely on heterosexual coupledom (Gatrell et al., #0!(). For example, co-parenting lone-fathers might take onmore heavy childcare responsibilities thanmany fathers in traditional families (Gatrell et al., #0!(). However, as men feel they have perceived lack of access to, for example, flexible working policies (Gatrell & Cooper, #0!)), these fathers might not receive sufficient organizational support to balance their work and family commitments. As for repartnered parents, extant research similarly

shows that they also suffer from role ambiguity. Martin- Uzzi and Duval-Tsioles (#0!3) demonstrate how repart- nered parents feel ‘caught in the middle’ and struggle with competing loyalties in new family arrangements. Experi- encing such role ambiguity as liminal over a long period andwithout closure could hinder thembuilding a coherent new WF identity upon repartnering. In the repartnering process, WF identities again go through a transition period as previously single parents now have a partner, yet at the same time do not parent in a nuclear family. The chal- lenges they are shown to experience in constructing new family identities (Pylyser et al., #0!8) could lead to diffi- culties adjusting work identities accordingly, and theymay become caught in a perpetual liminal space. Similarly, extant research suggests that stepparents suf-

fer from role ambiguity because their parental status and role are ill-defined, meaning they often find themselves in a liminal space where workplaces fail to recognize them as parents, whereas their work-identities may be affected by

their stepparent status (Jones, #00&; Blyaert et al., #0!)). This could lead to stepparents never quite escaping the ‘liminal’ stage as they transition from non-parent to parent because they are not considered, socially and organization- ally, to be ‘real’ parents (Murtorinne-Lahtinen & Jokinen, #0!%; Marsiglio, #00&). Indeed, Downe (#00!) shows that stepmothers may never be recognized as ‘real mothers’, obliging them to take on a liminal identity as ‘other’ moth- ers from which they cannot escape. She concludes that stepmothers are ‘caught in an interminable position of lim- inality’ due to the uncertainty of their family role (Downe, #00!, p. 38). Relatedly, employed stepparents might struggle to build

a coherent parental identity due to the lack of clear stages, or identity thresholds, as laid out in the three-stage model of van Gennep (!*)0 [!*0*]). For stepparents, there is no pregnancy and no period of parental leave that marks the threshold to parenthood as occurs for couples becoming biological parents in intact nuclear families (Downe, #00!; Sanner & Coleman, #0!%). Consequently, in contrast to the traditional biological transition to parenthood, stepparents might never complete CDITs, instead remaining separated from their previous identities but unable to forge a coher- ent new parental identity, thereby remaining ‘stuck’ in the liminal phase (van Gennep, !*)0 [!*0*]). In summary, our review suggests that parenthood tran-

sitions within different family forms are likely to be more challenging to complete due to complex parenting arrange- ments, limited resources, stigma and narrow cultural and organizational scripts (and associated policies) surround- ing ‘non-traditional’ ways of doing family. Effectively, this may lead to non-traditional families unable to move on from the ‘liminal’ stage proposed as transitory within current CDIT theory. As illustrated in Figure &, some indi- viduals might never attain the level of ‘integration’ that would enable them to align with organizational policies that define parenthood along ‘traditional’ lines (Sanner & Coleman, #0!%; Madden-Derdich & Leonard, #00#). We suggest, based on our review of existing research

on lone-parent and blended families, that by extending the CDIT framework, we can offer flexibility to illuminate different CDIT processes that have previously remained hidden from view in MOS thus far, leading to important new research directions, which we will discuss below.

HOWCANWORK–FAMILY THEORY IN MOS BE FURTHERED THROUGH A FOCUS ON BLENDED AND LONE-PARENT FAMILIES?

As shown above, drawing upon the example of CDIT the- ory, a focus on the four key ways in which different family forms experience the WF interface has the potential to

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMINAL SITUATION 211

F IGURE ) Cross-domain identity transition (CDIT) extension in which the liminal phase might become permanent.

open new avenues of WF theory development in MOS. To further demonstrate this argument and how our four novel themes could be applied to extend other WF theo- rizing, we identify in Table 3 some examples of key WF theories and concepts often drawn upon in MOS that could be challenged and extended through a focus on non-traditional families and the themes identified in our analysis, namely,WFC theory (Greenhaus&Beutell, !*8(), a well-established, prolific theory in this field, and WF decision-making (DM) theory (e.g., Greenhaus & Powell, #003), an approach currently growing in prominence. Fur- thermore, we highlight how a focus on lone-parents and blended families inWF research could also enable scholars to make recommendations for organizational practice to allow managers to better support such families to balance work and family commitments. In the following section, we build on these theoretical questions to outline a future research agenda.

EXPANDING THE FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA: CONSIDERING OTHER DIVERSE FAMILY TYPES

In this section, we make suggestions for future research, arguing that research into non-traditional families has the potential to reshape the WF research landscape within MOS as well as organizational practice. Specifically, we consider how such future research can utilize the four themes emerging from our transdisciplinary review to extend existing WF understanding within MOS, thereby shaping more inclusive theorizing as well as organiza- tional and societal policy and practice. First, with regard to CDIT theory, future research should

investigate how changes in the family domain (beyond the traditional transition to biological parenthood for first- time mothers or fathers within intact first-order unions) influenceWF identity transitions. In particular, as we have outlined above, examining how the transition to becom- ing a lone-parent or blended family impacts WF identities offers a real opportunity for theory extension aswell as new understandings regarding cross-domain transitions and how they play out in daily practice across diverse family

types, including the impact this has on work identities and organizational engagement. Drawing on the four themes identified within this review as central to WF experiences of such non-traditional families, we encourage researchers to examine how other such transitions are influenced by these themes. Second, we encourage researchers to examine how WF

DM plays out in daily practice within non-traditional fam- ilies. With few exceptions (e.g., Derigne & Porterfield, #0!0), WF DM research has thus far overwhelmingly focused on nuclear families, demonstrating that dual- earner couples in such families often make decisions together, based on joint family identities rather than indi- vidual constructs, and with a tendency to ‘fall back into gender’ (Miller, #0!!; e.g., Cluley & Hecht, #0#0; Powell and Greenhaus, #00); Radcliffe & Cassell, #0!&; Radcliffe et al., #0#3). Future research should therefore investigate how DM processes, both in terms of ‘anchoring deci- sions’ (e.g., decisions regarding custody arrangements) and ‘daily decisions’ (e.g., decisions regarding who will attend children’s school or childcare activities; Radcliffe & Cassell, #0!&), differ within blended and lone-parent fam- ilies. In particular, this includes considering the unique challenges and complexities non-traditional families face when navigating WF decisions. This encompasses the ways in which (!) complex residential arrangements, (#) limited resources, (3) stigma and (&) limited availability of cultural scripts influence the types of decisions faced (see Table 3), as well as the different factors considered and the processes involved, including who is part of the DM. Finally, we suggest a renewed investigation of well-

established, seminal WF theorizing, such as WFC theory (Greenhaus & Beutell, !*8(), with a focus on the WFC experiences of non-traditional families. Existing theory, predominantly based on a nuclear family perspective (e.g., Frone et al., !**#; Bagger et al., #008; Friede & Ryan, #00(), suggests three types of WFCs: time-, strain- and behaviour-based conflicts, to be important andprevalent in employed parents WF experiences (Greenhaus & Beutell, !*8(). Future researchers might explore the different types of WFC experienced by those in blended and lone-parent families and their manifestations in non-traditional family

212 SCHAEFER ,- ./.

TA B L E

( Im pl ica

tio ns of fo ur ke yt he m es fo rw

or k– fa m ily

(W F) th eo ry de ve lo pm

en ta nd

w or kp la ce pr ac tic e.

Ex ist in gW

F th eo ry

Su m m ar yb

as ed

on re se ar ch

w ith

nu cl ea rf am

ili es

Ex am

pl es of ho w in te gr at in g

tr an sd isc

ip lin

ar yl ite

ra tu re on

lo ne /b le nd

ed fa m ili es le ad su

st o th in k

di ffe

re nt ly ab ou te xt an tt he or y

Ex am

pl ei m pl ic at io ns

fo rt he or y

de ve lo pm

en t

Ex am

pl ei m pl ic at io ns

fo r

w or kp la ce

pr ac tic e

W F de ci sio

n- m ak in g

(D M )t he or ie s

∙ WF DM

re se ar ch

ha s

ov er w he lm in gl yf oc us ed

on nu cle ar fa m ili es (e .g. ,

Ch al lio l&

M ig no na c, #0 0( ;

Ra dc lif fe et al .,# 0# 3)

∙ Exi sti ng

DM th eo ry

su gg es ts du al -in co m e

co up le si n nu cle ar fa m ili es

m ak ed

ec isi on sb as ed

on jo in tf am

ily id en tit ie sr at he r

th an

in di vi du al co ns tru

ct s

(C lu le y&

H ec ht ,# 0# 0)

∙ Res ea rc h on

‘an ch or in g’ W F

de cis io ns sh ow

st ha tt he se

pr ov id et he

fra m ew or k fo r

co up le st o m ak ed

ai ly

de cis io ns (R ad cli ffe

& Ca ss el l, #0 !& )

!. Co

m pl ex

re sid

en tia

la rr an ge m en ts

an d re la tio

ns hi ps

w ith

co -p ar en ts

∙ Stra in ed

re la tio ns hi ps w ith

co -p ar en ts

ca n m ak eD

M di ffi cu lt; ev id en ce of

co m pl ex DM

pr oc es se se xi sts

in lo ne -p ar en ta nd

bl en de d fa m ili es ,e .g. ,

m at er na lg at ek ee pi ng

of di vo rc ed

m ot he rs w ho

se et he m se lv es as th e

pr im ar yp

ar en t( Ga no ng

et al .,# 0! ()

#. M an ag in g( lim

ite d)

re so ur ce s

∙ E.g .,c ou pl es in bl en de d fa m ili es ar e

m or el ik el yt o ke ep

m on ey m an ag em

en t

se pa ra te an d he nc em

ak ef in an cia

l de cis io ns di ffe re nt ly th an

nu cle ar

fa m ili es (R ai ja s, #0 !! )

3. St ig m a

∙ Ho w do es sti gm

ai m pa ct W F DM

? Lo ne -p ar en ts an d bl en de d fa m ili es ar e

sti ga m tiz ed

(S an ne re ta l., #0 #! ;A

na nd

& M itr a, #0 #! ), in flu en cin

gt he ir W F

id en tit ie s( Ra dc lif fe et al .,# 0# #) ,w

hi ch

in tu rn im pa ct sW

F de cis io ns (C lu le y

an d H ec ht ,# 0# 0)

&. Li m ite

d cu ltu

ra ls cr ip ts de fin

in g

fa m ily

ro le s

∙ WF de cis io ns fo llo w ex ist in gc ul tu ra l

sc rip ts, as in di vi du al sa do pt pa tte rn s

se en

in sim

ila ro th er s( Lu pu

et al .,

#0 !8 ), bu tt he re ar ef ew er sc rip ts to

gu id el on e- pa re nt sa nd

bl en de d fa m ili es

(e .g. ,M

ar tin -U zz i&

Du va l-T sio le s,

#0 !3 )s o ho w do es th is in flu en ce DM

?

∙ No pr ev io us re se ar ch

ex ist so n

an ch or in gD

M in re la tio n to

re la tio ns hi p di ss ol ut io n or

re fo rm

at io n. Qu

es tio ns ex ist

ar ou nd

th ek

in ds of W F de cis io ns m ad ea nd

ho w /w hy

th ey ar em

ad ea ts uc h ke y

po in ts (e .g. ,a nc ho rin

gd ec isi on s

he re m ig ht in clu

de ho w ca re is

sh ar ed

af te ra

br ea k- up ). Th is co ul d

pr ov id en

ew in sig ht si nt o di ffe re nt

fa ct or si nf lu en cin

gD M pr oc es se s

an d ex te nd

ex ta nt th eo rie s

∙ No re se ar ch

ex ist so n da ily

DM in

no n- nu cle ar fa m ili es .D ue

to co nf lic ti n re la tio ns hi ps w ith

co -p ar en ts, lo ne

an d re pa rtn

er ed

pa re nt sm

ig ht be

le ss lik el yt o ha ve

co he siv ef am

ily id en tit ie sw

ith ex -p ar tn er s( cf .,C

lu le y&

H ec ht ,

#0 #0 ), op en in gu

p qu es tio ns

re ga rd in gw

ha tg ui de st he ir DM

∙ As W F id en tit ie si nf lu en ce W F DM

, sti gm

am ig ht di sti nc tly

sh ap eb

ot h

da ily

an d an ch or in gd

ec isi on sf or

lo ne -p ar en ts an d bl en de d fa m ili es

∙ Mo re kn ow

le dg eo

n da ily

an d an ch or in gD

M co ul d

he lp m an ag er sa nd

or ga ni za tio ns be tte r

un de rs ta nd

W F de cis io ns

fa ce d by

no n- tra di tio na l

fa m ili es an d ho w th ey

m ig ht de al w ith

th es e

∙ Thi sc ou ld en ab le m or e

cu sto

m iz ed

su pp or t

or ga ni ze d ar ou nd ,f or

in sta nc e, sh ift in gr es id en tia l

ar ra ng em

en ts to en su re a

w el co m in go

rg an iz at io na l

di ve rs ity

cli m at ef or al li n

w hi ch

no fa m ili es ar e

di sa dv an ta ge d

(C on tin ue s)

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMINAL SITUATION 21(

TA B L E

( (C on tin ue d)

Ex ist in gW

F th eo ry

Su m m ar yb

as ed

on re se ar ch

w ith

nu cl ea rf am

ili es

Ex am

pl es of ho w in te gr at in g

tr an sd isc

ip lin

ar yl ite

ra tu re on

lo ne /b le nd

ed fa m ili es le ad su

st o th in k

di ffe

re nt ly ab ou te xt an tt he or y

Ex am

pl ei m pl ic at io ns

fo rt he or y

de ve lo pm

en t

Ex am

pl ei m pl ic at io ns

fo r

w or kp la ce

pr ac tic e

W or k– fa m ily

co nf lic t

(W FC

)t he or y

∙ Alt ho ug h W FC

,‘a fo rm

of in te rr ol ec on fli ct in w hi ch

th er ol ep

re ss ur es fro m th e

w or k an d fa m ily

do m ai ns

ar em

ut ua lly

in co m pa tib le

in so m er es pe ct ’( Gr ee nh au s

& Be ut el l, !* 8( ,p .% %) ,h as

be en

fre qu en tly

stu di ed

am on gn

on -tr ad iti on al

pa re nt s( M oi la ne n et al .,

#* !* ), th em

os ts em

in al

ar tic le sf ur th er in gt he or yo

n th is to pi ca re w rit te n fro m a

nu cle ar fa m ily

pe rs pe ct iv e

(e .g. ,G re en ha us an d

Be ut el l, !* 8( ;G

re en ha us

et al .,! *8 *)

∙ The se m in al ar tic le of

Gr ee nh au sa nd

Be ut el l

(!* 8( )s ug ge sts

th re et yp es

of W FC

s: tim

e- ,s tra in -a nd

be ha vi ou r-b

as ed

co nf lic ts

!. Co

m pl ex

re sid

en tia

la rr an ge m en ts

an d re la tio

ns hi ps

w ith

co -p ar en ts

∙ E.g .,r es id en tia la rr an ge m en ts ca n

sh ap ee xp er ie nc es of W FC

fo r

lo ne -m ot he rs (B ak ke r&

Ka rs te n, #0 !3 )

#. M an ag in g( lim

ite d)

re so ur ce s

∙ E.g .,t he

fin an cia

li m pl ica

tio ns of be in g

al on e- m ot he rc an

ha ve an

eg at iv e

im pa ct on

w or k– lif ec on fli ct (F an

& Po to čn ik ,# 0# !)

∙ Wh en

w om

en re pa rtn

er af te rb ei ng

sin gl e, ha vi ng

an em

pl oy ed

pa rtn

er ha s

be en

fo un d to in cr ea se w or k– lif e

ba la nc ev ia en ha nc ed

fa m ily

fin an cia

l m an ag em

en tc ap ac ity

(F an

& Po to čn ik ,

#0 #! )

3. St ig m a

∙ Lon e- pa re nt sa nd

bl en de d fa m ili es ar e

sti ga m tiz ed

(S an ne re ta l., #0 #! ;A

na nd

& M itr a, #0 #! ), po te nt ia lly

im pa ct in g

W FC

ex pe rie nc es

&. Li m ite

d cu ltu

ra ls cr ip ts de fin

in g

fa m ily

ro le s

∙ Rol ea m bi gu ity

is co m m on

in bo th

lo ne -p ar en ts an d bl en de d fa m ili es (e .g. ,

Br on te -T in ke w & H or ow

itz ,# 0! 0) .

Fa m ily

ro le am

bi gu ity

ca n ac ta sa n

an te ce de nt fo rf am

ily -to -w or k co nf lic t

(M ich

el et al .,# 0! 0)

∙ Du et o af oc us on

tra di tio na l

fa m ili es ,W

F re se ar ch

in M OS

m ay

ha ve m iss ed

ot he rp er tin en tt yp es of

W FC ∙ Rad cli ffe

et al .( #0 ## )s ug ge st

id en tit y- ba se d W FC

sh ou ld be

ex pl or ed

as ad

ist in ct ty pe

of W FC

, ba se d on

an al ys is of lo ne -m ot he rs

w ho

m ig ht ex pe rie nc et hi sm

or e

in te ns el yd

ue to du al ro le sa s

pr im ar yc ar er an d br ea dw

in ne r

∙ Res ea rc h ba se d on

le sb ia n m ot he rs

pr op os es sti gm

a- ba se d W FC

(S aw ye re ta l., #0 !% ). St ig m a- ba se d

W FC

sh ou ld be

in ve sti ga te d fu rth

er an d in re la tio n to ot he rf am

ily ty pe s,

e.g .,l on e- pa re nt sa nd

bl en de d

fa m ili es

∙ Bet te ru nd er sta nd in go

f di ve rs et yp es of W FC

an d

as so cia

te d an te ce de nt sa nd

co pi ng

str at eg ie sw

ou ld

en ab le or ga ni za tio ns an d

m an ag er st o be tte r

un de rs ta nd

po te nt ia l

so ur ce so fW

FC fo rd iff er en t

gr ou ps an d cr ea te di ffe re nt

ty pe so fa pp ro pr ia te W F

su pp or t

∙ E.g .,l in em

an ag er sc ou ld

re ce iv et ra in in go

n sti gm

at iz ed

fa m ily

id en tit ie s

an d ho w to su pp or tg ro up s

fa cin

gs tig m a- ba se d W FC

21) SCHAEFER ,- ./.

F IGURE 5 Framework demonstrating how the four key themes identified in our transdisciplinary review can support future researchers to rethink and extend work–family (WF) research within management and organization studies (MOS).

contexts. For instance, recent research examining non- traditional families WFC experiences tentatively suggests the existence of stigma-based WFC (Sawyer et al., #0!%) and identity-based WFC (Radcliffe et al., #0##), each of which requires further exploration. Again, drawing upon the four themes emanating from this review could aid yet further additional insights into other distinct types of WFCs faced by those in non-traditional families (see Table 3), as well as exploring coping strategies employed by lone-parents, stepparents and repartnered parents when navigating such WFC in light of these additional challenges. Figure ( summarizes how researchers can utilize our

framework, consisting of these four themes, to question, and thereby extend, any existing WF theory that is cur- rently based upon experiences of the traditional, nuclear family. It is important, further, to acknowledge the broad range

of diverse family forms still under-represented in the MOS literature. Building on our findings in the current article, we also suggest that MOS could further benefit from a more fluid understanding of family by drawing on more diverse samples representing ‘other’ families, for instance, those in which members have a disability, or LGBTQIA+ families, all of which are currently under-represented in MOS literature and theorizing (Beauregard et al., #00*; Gatrell et al., #0#!).

Future research should also consider investigating dif- ferent nuances in parents’ WF experiences among coun- tries or regions, paying attention to family constellations in the Global South. Here, research on work and fam- ily is nascent, but distinct experiences may arise due to divorce potentially being less common, whereas extended families are likely to be particularly pertinent toWF identi- ties, DM and conflict experience and resolution (Coleman et al., #000; Oldroyd et al., #0#!; Vo et al., #0#&), suggesting the need for further research. The four themes identified in this review also offer a strategic platform for explor- ing ‘other’ family forms more broadly, with the potential for future research to consider how and where these may remain pertinent, as well as where further distinct experi- ences beyond those represented by these four themes may be important. This research agenda aims to expand WF research

within MOS that furthers our understanding of WF dynamics in ‘other’ families, thereby shedding light on unique challenges and experiences that have previously remained hidden. In doing so, it is our hope that this future research agenda will also highlight important practical implications for organizations and managers to enable the creation of more supportive and inclusive work environ- ments for today’s families. The four themes highlighted in this review offer a crucial starting point in enabling organizations to rethink how existing WF policies and

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMINAL SITUATION 215

practices may or may not work for employees in non- traditional families who are likely navigating complex residential arrangements, with limited and fluctuating resources while facing stigma and a limited availabil- ity of cultural scripts to support WF identity integration. However, future research as outlined above is required to investigate these issues in greater depth and, therefore, provide more nuanced practical recommendations regard- ing how to create a welcoming diversity climate and offer customized support for the growing number of employees who are part of non-traditional families.

CONCLUSIONS

This transdisciplinary reviewmakes two important contri- butions to WF research located in MOS. First, our main contribution is in identifying four themes, permeating diverse literatures, that demonstrate the important ways in which lone-parents and blended families WF experiences differ from those of nuclear families, with important impli- cations for theory development. These themes are new to WF research in MOS and provide a strategic platform for future research. Second, drawing upon CDIT to illumi- nate our argument, we show how parenthood transitions and identities differ among and between different family forms—with blended and non-traditional families remain- ing in an unsettled, liminal space that is less comfortable than the integrated post-liminal identity that more often applies to those in traditional families, and that is easily recognized in MOS theory and practice. In so doing, we showcase how a more inclusive definition of ‘family’ can benefit WF theory in MOS. Our review has important implications for practice and

policy. Management and organization scholars as well as organizations need to recognize ‘other’ more diverse forms of family beyond the ‘traditional’ nuclear family. It is pertinent for managers and employers to recognize the distinct WF challenges of lone-parents and blended families so that they can respond appropriately to mod- ern workforce needs through organizational policy and practice. Specifically, we call for employers to implement flexible working policies that address the complexities of residential arrangements that lone-parents and individu- als in blended families may face and offer other resources such as in-house counselling in times of transition (e.g., divorce/separation or starting to live in a blended house- hold). Additionally, policy makers should revise family leave policies to ensure they are inclusive of the diverse forms that families can take. Last, we call for future research to explore the com-

plex WF experiences and challenges of diverse families, for example, among those who identify as LGBTQIA+.

Such future research should use both qualitative and quantitative approaches to explore these diverse experi- ences of employed parents today, whether consisting of non-heterosexual parents, divorced and/or co-parenting parents, familieswho becomeparents via adoption, or fam- ilies in which not all family members live in the same household. We highlight that families come in many dif- ferent, often shifting, forms alongside the need for this diverse reality to be better represented in WF scholarship and organizational policy.

CONFL ICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

ORCID Anneke Schaefer https://orcid.org/0000-000#-3*)%-!))% CarolineGatrell https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3!3&-3#(# LauraRadcliffe https://orcid.org/0000-000#-%80!-!**(

REFERENCES Adamsons, K., O’Brien, M. & Pasley, K. (#00%) An ecological approach to father involvement in biological and stepfather fam- ilies. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, ((#), !#*–!3*.

Allen, E.S., Baucom, D.H., Burnett, C.K., Epstein, N. & Rankin- Esquer, L.A. (#00!) Decision-making power, autonomy, and com- munication in remarried spouses compared with first-married spouses. Family Relations, (0(&), 3#)–33&.

Alsarve, J. (#0!%) Working it out: strategies to reconcile work and family among Swedish lone mothers. Families, Relationships and Societies, )(3), 3#(–3&0.

Anand, S. & Mitra, A. (#0#!) No family left behind: flexibility i- deals for employees with stigmatized family identities. Human Relations, %(((), 00!8%#)%#!***%0.

Andreasson, J. & Johansson, T. (#0!*) Becoming a half-time parent: fatherhood after divorce. Journal of Family Studies, #((!), #–!%.

Ashman, R., Radcliffe, L., Patterson, A. & Gatrell, C. (#0##) Re- ordering motherhood and employment: mobilizing ‘Mums Every- where’ during Covid-!*. British Journal of Management, 33(3), !!#(–!!&3.

Bagger, J., Li, A. & Gutek, B. A. (#008) How much do you value your family and does it matter? The joint effects of family iden- tity salience, family-interference-with-work, and gender. Human relations, )!(#), !8%–#!!.

Bakker,W. &Karsten, L. (#0!3) Balancing paid work, care and leisure in post-separation households. Acta Sociologica, ()(#), !%3–!8%.

Banister, E. & Kerrane, B. (#0##) Glimpses of change? UK fathers navigating work and care within the context of Shared Parental Leave.Gender, Work &Organization. https://doi.org/!0.!!!!/gwao. !#8!3

Beauregard, T. A., Adamson, M., Kunter, A., Miles, L. & Roper, I. (#0#0) Diversity in the work–life interface: introduction to the special issue. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 3*((), &)(–&%8.

Beauregard, T. A., Ozbilgin, M. & Bell, M. P. (#00*) Revisiting the social construction of family in the context of work. Journal of Managerial Psychology, #&(!), &)–)(.

216 SCHAEFER ,- ./.

Bernardes, J. (!**%) Family studies: an introduction. London: Psychol- ogy Press.

Bernardi, L. & Mortelmans, D. (Eds.) (#0!8) Lone parenthood in the life course. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Bevan, V. & Gatrell, C. (#0!%) Knowing her place: positioning women in science. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Blyaert, L., Van Parys, H., DeMol, J. & Buysse, A. (#0!)) Like a parent and a friend, but not the father: a qualitative study of stepfathers’ experiences in the stepfamily.AustralianandNewZealand Journal of Family Therapy, 3%(!), !!*–!3#.

Bock, J. D. (#000) Doing the right thing? Single mothers by choice and the struggle for legitimacy. Gender & Society, !&(!), )#–8).

Bonach, K. (#00() Factors contributing to quality coparenting: impli- cations for family policy. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, &3(3–&), %*–!03.

Brady, M. (#0!)) ‘Gluing, catching and connecting: how informal childcare strengthens single mothers’ employment trajectories. Work, Employment and Society, 30((), 8#!–83%.

Brand, J. E. & Thomas, J. S. (#0!&) Job displacement among sin- gle mothers: effects on children’s outcomes in young adulthood. American Journal of Sociology, !!*, *((–!00!.

Braithwaite, D. O., McBride, M. C. & Schrodt, P. (#003) “Par- ent teams” and the everyday interactions of co-parenting in stepfamilies. Communication Reports, !)(#), *3–!!!.

Braithwaite, D. O., Olson, L., Golish, T., Soukup, C. & Turman, P. (#00!) “Becoming a family”: developmental processes represented in blended family discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research, #*(3), ##!–#&%.

Breslin, D., Gatrell, C. & Bailey, K. (#0#0) Developing insights through reviews: reflecting on the #0th anniversary of the Inter- national Journal of Management Reviews. International Journal of Management Reviews, ##(!), 3–*.

Bronte-Tinkew, J. & Horowitz, A. (#0!0) Factors associated with unmarried, nonresident fathers’ perceptions of their coparenting. Journal of Family Issues, 3!(!), 3!–)(.

Burnett, S. B., Gatrell, C. J., Cooper, C. L. & Sparrow, P. (#0!3) Fathers at work: a ghost in the organizational machine. Gender, Work & Organization, #0()), )3#–)&).

Cartwright, P. & Gibson, K. (#0!3) The effects of co-parenting rela- tionships with ex-spouses on couples in step-families. Family Matters, *!, !8–#8.

Challiol, H. & Mignonac, K. (#00() Relocation decision-making and couple relationships: a quantitative and qualitative study of dual- earner couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, #)(3), #&%–#%&.

Chesley, N. (#0!)) What does it mean to be a “breadwinner” mother? Journal of Family Issues, 38(!8), #(*&–#)!*.

Church, E. (#000) The poisoned apple. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, !!(3), !–!8.

Cluley, H. & Hecht, T. D. (#0#0) Micro work-family decision-making of dual-income couples with young children: what does a couple like us do in a situation like this? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, *3(!), &(–%#.

Coleman, M. & Ganong, L. (!**%) Stepfamilies from the stepfamily’s perspective.Marriage & Family Review, #)(!–#), !0%–!#!.

Coleman, M., Ganong, L. & Fine, M. (#000) Reinvestigating remar- riage: another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and Family, )#(&), !#88–!30%.

Connelly, R. & J. Kimmel (#003) The effect of child care costs on the employment and welfare recipiency of single mothers. Southern Economic Journal, )*(3), &*8–(!*.

DeGreeff, B. L. & Platt, C. A. (#0!)) Green-eyed (step) monsters: parental figures’ perceptions of jealousy in the stepfamily. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, (%(#), !!#–!3#.

Derigne, L. & Porterfield, S. (#0!0) Employment change and the role of the medical home for married and single-mother families with children with special health care needs. Social Science &Medicine, %0(&), )3!–&!.

Doodson, L. J. & Davies, A. P. C. (#0!&) Different challenges, differ- ent well-being: a comparison of psychological well-being across stepmothers and biological mothers and across four categories of stepmothers. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, (((!), &*–)3.

Downe, P. J. (#00!) Stepping on maternal ground: reflections on becoming an “other-mother”. Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, 3(!), #%–&0

Drobnič, S. (#000) The effects of children on married and lone mothers’ employment in the United States and (West) Germany. European Sociological Review, !)(#), !3%–!(%.

Dupuis, S. (#0!0) Examining the blended family: The application of systems theory toward an understanding of the blended family system. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, *(3), #3*–#(!.

Fan, D., Breslin, D., Callahan, J. L. & Iszatt-White, M. (#0##) Advanc- ing literature review methodology through rigour, generativity, scope and transparency. International Journal of Management Reviews, #&(#), !%!–!80.

Fan, Y. & Potočnik, K. (#0#!) The impact of the depletion, accumula- tion, and investment of personal resources on work–life balance satisfaction and job retention: a longitudinal study on working mothers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, !3!, !03)().

Fan, Y., Potočnik, K. & Chaudhry, S. (#0#!) A process-oriented, multilevel, multidimensional conceptual framework of work–life balance support: a multidisciplinary systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, #3(&), &8)–(!(.

Felker, J. A., Fromme,D.K., Arnaut, G. L.& Stoll, B.M. (#00#) A qual- itative analysis of stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 38(!–#), !#(–!&#.

Finn, P. & Murphy, M. P. (#0##) A multi-dimensional view of stigma experienced by lone parents in Irish homeless and employment services. Social Policy and Society, #!(&), )%*–)8*.

Fletcher, L. & Beauregard, T. A. (#0##) The psychology of diversity and its implications for workplace (in) equality: looking back at the last decade and forward to the next. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, *((3), (%%–(*&.

Friede, A. & Ryan, A.M. (#00() The importance of the individual: how self-evaluations influence the work–family interface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M. & Cooper, M. L. (!**#) Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: testing a model of the work– family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, %%(!), )(.

Ganong, L. & Coleman, M. (#0!8) Studying stepfamilies: four eras of family scholarship. Family Process, (%(!), %–#&.

Ganong, L., Coleman,M., Jamison, T. & Feistman, R. (#0!() Divorced mothers’ coparental boundary maintenance after parents repart- ner. Journal of Family Psychology, #*(#), ##!.

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMINAL SITUATION 217

Gatrell, C., Ladge, J. J. & Powell, G. N. (#0#!) A review of fatherhood and employment: introducing new perspectives for management research. Journal of Management Studies, (*((), !–#*

Gatrell, C. J., Burnett, S. B., Cooper, C. L. & Sparrow, P. (#0!3) Work– life balance and parenthood: a comparative review of definitions, equity and enrichment. International Journal of Management Reviews, !((3), 300–3!).

Gatrell, C. J., Burnett, S. B., Cooper, C. L.& Sparrow, P. (#0!&) Parents, perceptions and belonging: exploring flexible working among UK fathers and mothers. British Journal of Management, #((3), &%3– &8%.

Gatrell, C. J., Burnett, S. B., Cooper, C. L. & Sparrow, P. (#0!() The price of love: the prioritisation of childcare and income earning among UK fathers. Families, Relationships and Societies, &(#), ##(– #38.

Gatrell, C. J. (#00() Hard Labour: the Sociology of Parenthood. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Gatrell, C. J. & Cooper, C. L. (#0!)) A sense of entitlement? Fathers,mothers and organizational support for family and career. Community, Work & Family, !*(#), !3&–!&%.

Gold, J.M. (#0#0) Supporting successful stepfathering: an integration of the professional literature and online stepfather reflections. The Family Journal, #8(#), !&)–!&*.

Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z. & Perry-Jenkins, M. (#0!#) The division of labor in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual new adoptive parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, %&(&), 8!#–8#8.

Greenberg, D. N., Clair, J. A. & Ladge, J. J. (#0!)) Identity and the transition to motherhood: navigating existing, temporary, and anticipatory identities. In: Research perspectives on work and the transition to motherhood. Berlin: Springer, pp. 33–((.

Greenhaus, J. H. & Beutell, N. J. (!*8() Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, !0(!), %)– 88.

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C. S., Rabinowitz, S. & Beutell, N. J. (!*8*) Sources of work–family conflict among two-career couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3&(#), !33– !(3.

Greenhaus, J. H. & Powell, G. N. (#003) When work and family col- lide: deciding between competing role demands. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, *0(#), #*!–303.

Greenhaus, J. H. & Powell, G. N. (#0!))Makingwork and family work: From hard choices to smart choices. Routledge.

Hans, J. D. & Coleman, M. (#00*) The experiences of remarried stepfathers who pay child support. Personal Relationships, !)(&), (*%–)!8.

Hennekam, S. (#0!)) Identity transition during pregnancy: the importance of role models. Human Relations, )*(*), !%)(–!%*0.

Hennekam, S., Syed, J., Ali, F. & Dumazert, J. P. (#0!*) A multilevel perspective of the identity transition tomotherhood.Gender,Work & Organization, #)(%), *!(–*33.

Hennekam, S. A. & Ladge, J. J. (#0!%) When lesbians become moth- ers: identity validation and the role of diversity climate. Journal of Vocational Behavior, !03, &0–((.

Hertz, R., Mattes, J. & Shook, A. (#0#0) When paid work invades the family: single mothers in the COVID-!* pandemic. Journal of Family Issues, &#(*), 0!*#(!3×#0*)!&#.

Hook, J. L. & Chalasani, S. (#008) Gendered Expectations? Recon- sidering single fathers’ child-care time. Journal of Marriage and Family, %0, *%8–**0.

Hughes, J. & Gray, M. (#00() The use of family-friendly work arrangements by lone and couple mothers. Family Matters, (%!), !8.

Humberd, B., Ladge, J. J. &Harrington, B. (#0!() The “new” dad: nav- igating fathering identity within organizational contexts. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(#), #&*–#)).

Ibarra, H. & Obodaru, O. (#0!)) Betwixt and between identities: liminal experience in contemporary careers. Research in Organi- zational Behavior, 3), &%–)&.

Iztayeva, A. (#0#!) Custodial single fathers before and during the COVID-!* crisis: work, care, and well-being. Social Sciences, !0(3), *&.

Iztayeva, A. (#0##) Single fathers and work–family conflict in white- and blue-collar jobs. Community, Work & Family, !–!).

Jansen, M., Mortelmans, D. & Snoeckx, L. (#00*) Repartnering and (re)employment: strategies to cope with the economic con- sequences of partnership dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, %!((), !#%!–!#*3.

Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., Shanine, K. K. & Kacmar, K. M. (#0!%) Introducing the family: A review of family science with implica- tions for management research. Academy of Management Annals, !!(!), 30*–3&!.

Johnsen, C. G. & Sørensen, B. M. (#0!&) ‘It’s capitalism on coke!’: from temporary to permanent liminality in organization studies. Culture and Organization, #!(&), 3#!–33%.

Johnston, D. D. & Swanson, D. H. (#00)) Constructing the “good mother”: the experience of mothering ideologies by work status. Sex Roles, (&(%–8), (0*–(!*.

Jones, A. C. (#00&) Transforming the story: narrative applica- tions to a stepmother support group. Families in Society, 8((!), !#*–!38.

Jones, O. & Gatrell, C. (#0!&) Editorial: the future of writing and reviewing for IJMR. International Journal ofManagement Reviews, !)(3), #&*–#)&.

Konrad, A. M. & Yang, Y. (#0!#) Is using work-life interface ben- efits a career-limiting move? An examination of women, men, lone parents, and parents with partners. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), !0*(–!!!*.

Kossek, E. E., Baltes, B. B. &Matthews, R. A. (#0!!) Howwork–family research can finally have an impact in organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, &(3), 3(#–3)*.

Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T. & Hammer, L. B. (#0!!) Work- place social support and work–family conflict: a meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general andwork–family-specific super- visor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, )&(#), #8*–3!3.

Kumar, K. (#0!%) The blended family life cycle. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, (8(#), !!0–!#(.

Kurdek, L. A. (#00&) Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, ))(&), 880–*00.

Ladge, J. J., Clair, J. A. & Greenberg, D. (#0!#) Cross-domain identity transition during liminal periods: constructing multiple selves as professional and mother during pregnancy. Academy of Management Journal, ((()), !&&*–!&%!.

Ladge, J. J., Humberd, B. K., BaskervilleWatkins,M.&Harrington, B. (#0!() Updating the organizationman: an examination of involved fathering in the workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives, #*(!), !(#.

218 SCHAEFER ,- ./.

Lupu, I., Spence, C. & Empson, L. (#0!8) When the past comes back to haunt you: the enduring influence of upbringing on the work– family decisions of professional parents. Human Relations, %!(#), !((–!8!.

Maclean, M. J., Drake, D. & McKillop, D. (#0!() Perceptions of step- fathers’ obligations to financially support stepchildren. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 3%(#), #8(–#*).

Madden-Derdich, D. A. & Leonard, S. A. (#00#) Shared experiences, unique realities: formerly married mothers’ and fathers’ percep- tions of parenting and custody after divorce. Family Relations, (!(!), 3%–&(.

Mannis, V. S. (!***) Singlemothers by choice.Family Relations, &8(#), !#!.

Marsiglio, W. (#00&) When stepfathers claim stepchildren: a concep- tual analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, ))(!), ##–3*.

Martin-Uzzi, M. & Duval-Tsioles, D. (#0!3) The experience of remar- ried couples in blended families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, (&(!), &3–(%.

May, V. (#0!!) Changing notions of lone motherhood in twentieth- century Finland.Women’s History Review, #0(!), !#%–!&3.

McManus, K., Korabik, K., Rosin, H. M. & Kelloway, E. K. (#00#) Employed mothers and the work–family interface: does family structure matter? Human Relations, (((!!), !#*(–!3#&.

Mergen, A. & Ozbilgin, M. F. (#0#!) Understanding the Follow- ers of Toxic Leaders: Toxic Illusion and Personal Uncertainty. International Journal of Management Reviews, #3(!), &(–)3.

Michel, J. S., Mitchelson, J. K., Pichler, S. & Cullen, K. L. (#0!0) Clarifying relationships among work and family social sup- port, stressors, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, %)(!), *!–!0&.

Millar, J. & Ridge, T. (#0!3) Lonemothers and paidwork: the ‘family– work project’. International Review of Sociology, #3(3), ()&–(%%.

Millar, J. & Ridge, T. (#0#0) No margin for error: fifteen years in the working lives of lone mothers and their children. Journal of Social Policy, &*(!), !–!%.

Miller, A., Cartwright, C. & Gibson, K. (#0!8) Stepmothers’ per- ceptions and experiences of the wicked stepmother stereotype. Journal of Family Issues, 3*(%), !*8&–#00).

Miller, T. (#00() Making sense of motherhood: a narrative approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, T. (#0!!) Falling back into gender? Men’s narratives and practices around first-time fatherhood. Sociology, &(()), !0*&– !!0*.

Miller, T. (#0!#) Balancing caring and paid work in the UK: narrating ‘choices’ as first-time parents. International Review of Sociology, ##(!), 3*–(#.

Millward, L. J. (#00)) The transition to motherhood in an orga- nizational context: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, %*(3), 3!(–333.

Moilanen, S., Aunola, K., May, V., Sevón, E. & Laakso, M.-L. (#0!*) Nonstandard work hours and single versus coupled mothers’ work-to-family conflict. Family Relations, )8(#), #!3–#3!.

Moilanen, S., May, V., Räikkönen, E., Sevón, E. & Laakso, M.-L. (#0!)) Mothers’ non-standard working and childcare-related chal- lenges. International Journal of Sociology andSocial Policy, 3)(!/#), 3)–(#.

Morgan, D. H. (#0#0) Family practices in time and space. Gender, Place & Culture, #%((), %33–%&3.

Morgan, D. H. G. (#0!!) Locating ‘Family Practices’. Sociological Research Online, !)(&), !–*.

Murphy, L. D., Thomas, C. L., Cobb, H. R. & Hartman, A. E. (#0#0) A review of the LGBTQ+ work–family interface: what do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Organizational Behavior, &#(#), !3*–!)!.

Murtorinne-Lahtinen, M. & Jokinen, K. (#0!%) Stepmothers’ con- structions and negotiations of belonging. Journal of Family Studies, #)(!), (!–)).

Murtorinne-Lahtinen, M., Moilanen, S., Tammelin, M., Rönkä, A. & Laakso, M.-L. (#0!)) Mothers’ non-standard working sched- ules and family time. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 3)(!/#), !!*–!3(.

Natalier, K. & Hewitt, B. (#0!0) ‘‘It’s not just about the money’: non- resident fathers’ perspectives on paying child support’. Sociology, &&(3), &8*–(0(.

Neale, B. & Smart, C. (!**%) Experimentswith parenthood? Sociology, 3!(#), #0!–#!*.

Oldroyd, R., Rahman, S., Derose, L. F. & Hadfield, K. (#0#!) Fam- ily structure transitions: prevalence and physical health effects in Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3!, !%&*–!%)0

Office for National Statistics. (#0!*) Families and households in the UK: 2019. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/ peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/#0!* (Accessed: !0/08 #0#!).

Office for National Statistics. (#0#3) Children in families in England and Wales: Census 2021. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/ peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ families/bulletins/childreninfamiliesinenglandandwales/ census#0#!#glossary (Accessed: !(/!0/#0#&).

Office for National Statistics. (#0#&) Children in families in England and Wales: Census 2021. Newport, Wales: Office for National Statistics. Available Online. Available from: https://www.ons.gov. uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ families/bulletins/childreninfamiliesinenglandandwales/ census#0#!#glossary [Accessed !(th August #0#&].

Özbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., Tatli, A. & Bell, M. P. (#0!!) Work– life, diversity and intersectionality: a critical review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, !3(#), !%%– !*8.

Padavic, I., Ely, R. J. & Reid, E. M. (#0#0) Explaining the persistence of gender inequality: the work–family narrative as a social defense against the #&/% work culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, )((!), )!–!!!.

Parasuraman, S. & Greenhaus, J. H. (#00#) Toward reducing some critical gaps in work–family research. Human Resource Manage- ment Review, !#(3), #**–3!#.

Parsons, T. & Bales, R. F. (!*()) Family: socialization and interaction process. London: Routledge.

Pasley, K., Futris, T. G. & Olmstead, S. B. (#00*) an exploration of married and divorced, nonresident men’s perceptions and organi- zation of their father role identity. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as Fathers, %(3), #&*–#)8.

Pérez, J. C. & Jaramillo Tórrens, A. (#00*) The myth of mother- hood and the role of stepmothers: an outlook of women who have delayed their motherhood. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, (0(3), #0)–#!*.

UNDERSTANDING THE LIMINAL SITUATION 219

Philip, G. (#0!3) Relationality and moral reasoning in accounts of fathering after separation or divorce: care, gender and working at ‘fairness’. Families, Relationships and Societies, #(3), &0*–&#&.

Philip, G. & O’Brien, M. (#0!%) Are interventions supporting sep- arated parents father inclusive? Insights and challenges from a review of programme implementation and impact.Child & Family Social Work, ##(#), !!!&–!!#%.

Pleck, J. H. (!*%%) The work–family role system. Social Problems, #&(&), &!%–&#%.

Portrie, T. & Hill, N. R. (#00() Blended families: a critical review of the current research. The Family Journal, !3(&), &&(–&(!.

Powell, G. N. &Greenhaus, J. H. (#00)) ‘Managing incidents of work- family conflict: A decision-making perspective.’HumanRelations, (*(*), !!%*–!#!#.

Pylyser, C., Buysse, A. & Loeys, T. (#0!8) Stepfamilies doing family: a meta-ethnography. Family Process, (%(#), &*)–(0*.

Radcliffe, L., Cassell, C. &Malik, F. (#0##) Providing, performing and protecting: The importance of work identities in negotiating con- flicting work–family ideals as a single mother. British Journal of Management, 33(#), 8*0–*0(.

Radcliffe, L. S. & Cassell, C. (#0!&) Resolving couples’ work–family conflicts: the complexity of decision making and the introduction of a new framework. Human Relations, )%(%), %*3–8!*.

Radcliffe, L., Cassell, C. & Spencer, L. (#0#3) Work–family habits? Exploring the persistence of traditional work–family decision making in dual-earner couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, !&(, !03*!&.

Raijas, A. (#0!!) Money management in blended and nuclear fami- lies. Journal of Economic Psychology, 3#(&), (()–()3.

Ramarajan, L. & Reid, E. (#0!3) Shattering the myth of sepa- rate worlds: negotiating nonwork identities at work. Academy of Management Review, 38(&), )#!–)&&.

Ridge, T. &Millar, J. (#0!!) Following families: working lone-mother families and their children. Social Policy & Administration, &((!), 8(–*%.

Riness, L. S. & Sailor, J. L. (#0!() An exploration of the lived experi- ence of step-motherhood. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, ()(3), !%!–!%*.

Rogers, S. J. (!**)) Mothers’ work hours and marital quality: varia- tions by family structure and family size. Journal of Marriage and Family, (8(3), )0)–)!%.

Roper, S. &Capdevila, R. (#0!0)We are a real family: aQmethodolog- ical study on the experience of stepmothers. Radical Psychology: A Journal of Psychology, Politics, and Radicalism, *(#), !–#(.

Rowbotham, S. (!**%) A century of women: the history of women in Britain and the United States. New York: Viking Press.

Rowson, T. S., Meyer, A. & Houldsworth, E. (#0#!) Work identity pause and reactivation: a study of cross-domain identity transi- tions of trailing wives in Dubai. Work, Employment and Society, 3)(#), !–!8.

Saint-Jacques, M.-C., Godbout, É. & Ivers, H. (#0#0) People’s opin- ions and stereotypes about stepfamilies. Journal of Family Issues, &!(!!), #!3)–#!(*.

Sanner, C. & Coleman, M. (#0!%) (Re) constructing family images: stepmotherhood before biological motherhood. Journal of Mar- riage and Family, %*((), !&)#–!&%%.

Sanner, C., Ganong, L. & Coleman, M. (#0#!) Families are socially constructed: pragmatic implications for researchers. Journal of Family Issues, &#(#), &##–&&&.

Sawyer, K. B., Thoroughgood, C. & Ladge, J. J. (#0!%) Invisible fami- lies, invisible conflicts: examining the added layer of work–family conflict for employees with LGB families. Journal of Vocational Behavior, !03, #3–3*.

Schaefer, A., Radcliffe, L. S. & Gatrell, C. J. (#0#0) Lone parents and blended families: advocating flexible working to support families in transition. In: Norgate, S.H. & Copper, C.L. (Eds.) Flexible work designing our healthier future lives. London: Routledge, pp. !*)– #!#.

Schmeeckle, M. (#00%) Gender dynamics in stepfamilies: adult stepchildren’s views. Journal of Marriage and Family, )*(!), !%&– !8*.

Skew, A., Evans, A. & Gray, E. (#00*) Repartnering in the United Kingdom and Australia. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, &0(&), ()3–(8(.

Snyder, H. (#0!*) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, !0&, 333– 33*.

Spencer-Dawe, E. (#00() Lone mothers in employment: seeking rational solutions to role strain. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, #%(3–&), #(!–#)&.

Steffens, M. C., Preuß, S. & Scheifele, C. (#0!*) Work-related impres- sion formation: reviewing parenthood penalties and investigating a “fatherhood penalty” for single fathers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, &!((), #8%–30&.

Stumbitz, B. & Jaga, A. (#0#0) A southern encounter: maternal body work and low-income mothers in South Africa. Gender, Work & Organization, #%()), !&8(–!(00.

Sweeney, M. M. (#0!0) Remarriage and stepfamilies: strategic sites for family scholarship in the #!st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, %#(3), ))%–)8&.

Turner, J. J., Kopystynska, O., Bradford, K., Schramm, D. G. & Higginbotham, B. (#0#!) Predicting parenting and stepparenting difficulties among newly remarried parents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, )#(%), (!!–(3!.

Valiquette-Tessier, S.-C., Vandette, M.-P. & Gosselin, J. (#0!)) Is family structure a cue for stereotyping? A systematic review of stereotypes and parenthood. Journal of Family Studies, ##(#), !)#–!8!.

VanEeden-Moorefield, B., Pasley, K., Dolan, E.M.&Engel,M. (#00%) From divorce to remarriage: financial management and security among remarried women. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, &%(3- &), #!–&#.

Van Gasse, D. & Mortelmans, D. (#0#0) Single mothers’ perspectives on the combination of motherhood and work. Journal of Social Sciences, *((), 8(.

van Gennep, A. (!*)0 !*0*) The rites of passage. Translated by Vizedom, M.B. and Caffee, G.L. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Vo, L. C., Lavissière, M. C., Lavissière, A. & Alcaraz, J. M. (#0#&) “Commit professional suicide or take upmypilgrim’s staff again?”: a cultural examination of how female managers resolve shock events in developing regions. Human Relations, %%(3), 3)0–3*%.

220 SCHAEFER ,- ./.

Wallis, T. & Price, L. (#003) The relationship between work–family conflict and central life interests amongst single workingmothers. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, #*(!), #)–3!.

Weaver, S. E. & Coleman, M. (#00() A mothering but not a mother role: a grounded theory study of the nonresidential stepmother role. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, ##(&), &%%–&*%.

Whitsett, D. P. & Land, H. M. (!**#) Role strain, coping, and marital satisfaction of stepparents. Families in Society, %3(#), %*–*#.

How to cite this article: Schaefer, A., Gatrell, C. & Radcliffe, L. (#0#() Understanding the liminal situation of lone-parent and blended families—a review and agenda for work–family research. International Journal of Management Reviews, #%, !*)–##0. https://doi.org/!0.!!!!/ijmr.!#388

Copyright of International Journal of Management Reviews is the property of Wiley- Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.